Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Bacon Factory

Mr. Dunlop: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he will take to ensure that plans for a new bacon factory go ahead.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. J. D. Concannon): Early last year the Department of Commerce offered the Unipork group substantial assistance towards the construction and equipment costs of a new bacon factory which the group proposed to build in Cookstown to replace existing capacity. In addition, assistance was offered by the European Agricultural Guarantee and Guidance Fund. I understand that Unipork has not yet taken a final decision to go ahead with the project, and my officials are meeting the company today to review the current position. The Government are well aware of the importance of the pig processing industry in the Province and the meat industry employment scheme is evidence of our determination to safeguard employment in this sector.

Mr. Dunlop: If Unipork proves to be viable in the near future and turns last year's loss into a profit, will the Government consider providing a little additional financial assistance to build this factory in order to safeguard jobs in the Cookstown area and to meet the requirements of EEC regulations on the processing of pork?

Mr. Concannon: Since this is the first Question after what happened last night I give the hon. Member 10 out of 10 for his cheek. Asking for an increase in public expenditure in the first Question

after the vote that we had in the House is something of a cheek. We shall be offering assistance to Northern Ireland firms in the same quantities as we have in the past, in spite of the efforts of some hon. Members.

Mr. Joseph Dean: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the behaviour of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop) and his colleagues ranks almost as hypocrisy of the worst kind? Continually to stand in the House and ask for increases in public expenditure in that Province, which is already doing much better than some other—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must ask a question of the Minister on the things for which he is responsible. He is not responsible for the other side of the House.

Mr. Dean: Does the Minister not think that their behaviour as pet poodles of the Conservative Party which is attempting to wreck our economic policy—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Question Time will be ruined if hon. Members do not ask questions on departmental responsibilities.

Mr. Concannon: I am sure that those to whom my hon. Friend's question was directed will have taken note of it.

Mr. Powell: Is the Minister of State aware that both inside the Northern Ireland Vote and generally it is perfectly possible to increase one item of expenditure and to reduce another?

Mr. Concannon: I am fully aware of that. I am also fully aware of the generous contribution that is made by the Treasury to Northern Ireland. Sometimes I and some of my colleagues, who are showing a little exasperation, wonder what we have to do.

Road Accidents

Mr. Tierney: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people were killed in road accidents and how many road accidents there were in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ray Carter): The number of persons killed in road accidents in each of the last five years, 1973 to 1977, were 335, 316, 313, 300 and 355.


The number of road accidents in each of those years was 5,000, 4,795, 4,882, 4,943 and 5,352 respectively.

Mr. Tierney: Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures are disturbing? They appear to represent about double the average figure for the rest of the United Kingdom. What does my hon. Friend propose to do about this problem in a country where many other lives are lost unnecessarily?

Mr. Carter: My hon. Friend is right in his last point. It is true that more people have died on the roads than have died in any single year through violence, the troubles, and so forth. In the near future I shall be introducing an order relating to the compulsory wearing of seat belts. Within the Department we are examining proposals to increase penalties for drunken driving, or drinking and driving. These two measures should make an impact on the deplorable level of fatalities and accidents on the roads in Northern Ireland.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the Minister agree with the head of traffic control in the RUC that accident rates are at their present high level because of excessive drinking and driving? Is the Minister taking immedate steps to do something about the large number of people who are drinking in all areas, both in licensed clubs and in licensed premises?

Mr. Carter: The hon. Gentleman is right. Drinking asociated with driving is the major factor in the loss of life through road accidents. An urgent review is currently taking place in my Department and we hope to bring forward proposals in the autumn.

Mr. Fitt: In view of the appalling carnage on the roads of Northern Ireland and the representations that have been made to my hon. Friend by those in authority in the hospitals, such as the consultant surgeons, does he agree that it is grossly irresponsible for Northern Ireland Opposition Members to attempt to stop the compulsory wearing of seat belts in the Province? Does my hon. Friend not agree that this is necessary in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Carter: My hon. Friend is right on the first point. Virtually all responsible and professional opinion in North-

ern Ireland favours the compulsory wearing of seat belts. On my hon. Friend's last point, I have not given up hope that the vast majority of Unionist Members—indeed, all Northern Ireland Members of Parliament—will vote in support of the proposition when it comes before the House.

Mr. McCusker: Does the Minister agree that there is little point in stiffening the legislation on drunken driving if it cannot be enforced? What is being done to ensure more rigorous enforcement of the existing law?

Mr. Carter: There are difficulties in Northern Ireland in that respect. I should be foolish to deny it. However, the RUC has assured me in my consultations with it that it can go about its job of detecting drinking and driving in a normal way. I do not think that the RUC lacks the ability to co-operate with the Government in the implementation of the law.

Parliamentary Constituencies (Electorate)

Mr. Farr: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will state the average number of electors in the 12 Northern Ireland constituencies on the latest register of electors.

Mr. Carter: On the 1978 register of electors the average is 86,142.

Mr. Farr: As that compares with an average of 64,088 for Great Britain, how much longer will Northern Ireland be deprived of proper political representation? When will the findings of the Speaker's Conference on Northern Ireland be implemented by the introduction of a Bill to put the matter right?

Mr. Carter: We will not be introducing immediate legislation. That was made known to the House by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. Implementation depends to some extent on the outcome of the Boundary Commission's deliberations. The Commission will have to listen to opinion in Northern Ireland before coming to a conclusion and making recommendations.

Mr. Neave: Is the Minister aware that his reply is disappointing? Notwithstanding what the Leader of the House said, is the hon. Gentleman aware that on 19th


April when the Prime Minister announced Mr. Speaker's recommendations he told my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) that he would consider publishing the Bill this Session? Will the Government give further consideration to that possibility in order to avoid delay and in view of the near unanimous nature of the findings of the Speaker's Conference?

Mr. Carter: Too much attention is being paid to that aspect of the issue. Even if a Bill were published, there would be no chance of any recommendations being implemented for the next General Election. That would have to take place afterwards, and so the timing is not as critical as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Since a promise was made that the Boundary Commission could start preliminary work before the Bill was published or debated, will the Minister say whether the preliminary work has begun?

Mr. Carter: That is a matter for the Boundary Commission, but the original suggestion that it could start preliminary work stands, and it is probably looking at the matter now.

Housing (Public Sector)

Mr. Watkinson: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he remains satisfied with the rate of improvement in public sector housing in Belfast.

Mr. Carter: While the Northern Ireland Housing Executive is making encouraging progress in tackling the housing problems in Belfast, the scale of the work required is immense and every effort is being made to ensure more rapid progress.

Mr. Watkinson: Is it not the case that there are more houses available than are needed in Northern Ireland? Is any progress being made in bringing people back to those areas of Belfast which have been torn by sectarian strife?

Mr. Carter: My hon. Friend is right. There is a crude housing surplus in Northern Ireland, particularly in Belfast where the surplus is very real and where houses are available for people who need them. The trouble is that those homes happen to be in the wrong places. In

private housing we have been able, through the use of public funds and building society funds, to make mortgages available to people who want to buy houses in the inner cities. I am pleased to report that more and more people are returning to the inner city and are buying properties which have lain derelict for some years.

Mr. Kilfedder: How can Housing Executive tenants throughout Northern Ireland be expected to tolerate a situation in which repairs are not carried out to their homes when demanded, or are badly carried out? Is the Minister aware that this happens even though tenants are being asked for further increases in rent, and yet food and heating cost more in Northern Ireland and wages are generally lower than in the rest of the United Kingdom, and there is grave hardship in many cases? Will the Government deal with that aspect?

Mr. Carter: That is the hon. Gentleman's usual jumbled question. The plain fact is that rents are significantly lower in Northern Ireland than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. I should be anxious to receive a letter from the hon. Gentleman urging the Government not to go ahead with an increase in rents in Northern Ireland.
It is true, of course, that the Housing Executive does not meet the requirements placed upon it to maintain its properties to a decent standard. It has made its views on that known, and it is trying to meet the demand that I and my Department have placed upon it to improve the quality of its efforts in maintenance.

Mr. Carson: Does the Minister agree that many of the working class in Belfast, especially in North Belfast, the Lower Oldpark RD3 and North of the Shankill Road have been betrayed by his Department and the Housing Executive which promised that they would provide housing in that area? Is he aware that over the past few years they have received no instructions to rehouse people? Is he further aware that people there are now living in deplorable conditions? Many have been forced to leave the area and move to the outskirts of Belfast and other places. Will the Minister give an assurance that he will look at this matter and help those who are living in the Lower Oldpark and other parts of North Belfast


to be rehoused in the area in which they have lived for many years?

Mr. Carter: The hon. Gentleman will be talking to me later today on this matter, but I ought to put the record straight now. We are to build 100 new houses in that area. It is untrue to say that we have reneged on any promise in that matter.

Mr. Madden: How much public subsidy is being devoted by the Government to housing in Northern Ireland? Will my hon. Friend confirm that the industry spokesman for the Conservatives, the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), with whom so many Opposition Northern Ireland Members voted last night, is on record as saying that all grants and subsidies do great harm?

Mr. Carter: That is one of the strange facts of life, among many others, with which we have to live in Northern Ireland. Housing in Northern Ireland is subsidised to a far greater extent than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. But that is something that the Government and I in particular, as the Minister responsible, are prepared to live with because housing conditions there are so much worse than in any other part of the United Kingdom. The subsidy we have to maintain in Northern Ireland is consequently that much greater.

Mr. Bradford: Will the Minister encourage an increase in staff at district office level in the Housing Executive, because it is at that point that the work is certainly expedited? Will he try to encourage the return of the maintenance section to district office level because of the great delays and ineptitude of the centralised maintenance section?

Mr. Carter: As I have said, we are dissatisfied at every level with the maintenance effort in the Housing Executive in Northern Ireland. I am bound to point out, however, that once again the hon. Member is calling for public expenditure increases. He and his hon. Friends call for public expenditure increases in Northern Ireland and public expenditure cuts in Great Britain.

Brian Maguire

Miss Maynard: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will order an inquiry into the death of Brian

Maguire, found hanged in his cell on Wednesday 10th May at Castlereagh Police Station; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Roy Mason): A senior police officer from outside the RUC has carried out a full investigation, and in accordance with normal practice his report is being forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions. I understand that the coroner's inquest will take place in public on 26th June. The House will thus understand that it would not be proper for me to say anything further at this stage.

Miss Maynard: In view of what I feel is a disappointing reply, may I ask the Secretary of State whether he will consider a public inquiry into the situation in Castlereagh? I ask for that for a number of reasons. The first is the Amnesty report, which calls for a public inquiry. Amnesty is a reputable body. The second is that Britain has previously been condemned for brutal and harsh treatment of prisoners. The third is that doctors and lawyers are all critical of what is going on in Castlereagh, and the lawyers, in particular, are critical of the emergency powers legislation, feeling from the evidence that they have that this reduces the safeguards against certain police operations.
Does the Secretary of State believe that it is possible to maintain a democratic society with these powers? Does he think that it is possible to maintain a democratic society in this country while we behave as we do in Northern Ireland?
Finally—

Mon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I was kind to the hon. Lady in letting her go on for so long. But she shall have her "Finally".

Miss Maynard: Finally, will the Secretary of State agree to an all-party deputation of Members of Parliament going across to Northern Ireland to look at the prisons there—not just to meet the prisoners but to look at the prisons and the conditions there?

Mr. Mason: On the latter point, Members of Parliament are always going to Northern Ireland, whether it is Northern Ireland Labour Party defence groups, Northern Ireland Labour Party groups, or similar groups from the Opposition side


of the House, and the prisons have been visited.
Secondly, on this Question I am dealing with the suicide of Brian Maguire and not the general conditions in Castlereagh. My hon. Friend will notice that there is a later Question on that subject on the Order Paper.
My hon. Friend ought to know that the suicide of Brian Maguire is the first suicide that we have had in Northern Ireland's gaols for 10 years.

Mr. Powell: Is the right hon. Member aware—

Miss Maynard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Lady would not mind waiting for a moment, otherwise she will stop anyone else asking a supplementary question.

Mr. Powell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my hon. Friends and I support his determination to stick to the proper procedures laid down by law, which apply to the whole of the United Kingdom, for investigating alleged breaches of discipline and alleged criminal offences, and that in this case, as in others, we entirely support his restriction of inquiries into matters of practice and procedure which are appropriate for that treatment?

Mr. Mason: Any death in police custody is a serious matter and is treated as such by any police force, including the Royal Ulster Constabulary. But that is not to say that its mere occurrence is evidence of impropriety. In England and Wales, for example, there were 169 deaths in police custody between January 1970 and the middle of 1977. In each of these cases, where appropriate, a police investigation was carried out and a public inquest subsequently held. In 27 of these cases the coroner's verdict was suicide. We are carrying out the agreed procedures in Northern Ireland precisely as they are carried out in England and Wales.
I repeat that we must keep the matter in proper perspective. This is the first suicide that we have had in the whole of Northern Ireland gaols in 10 years.

Mr. Flannery: Will my right hon. Friend accept from me that there will be a very bitter taste in the mouths of the

minority community as a result of the decision to hold only internal police inquiries instead of having a full public inquiry? Will he accept that his statement this afternoon that he will not allow a full party of Members of Parliament to go to Northern Ireland will convey the impression to the minority community that concealment is going on? Will my right hon. Friend further accept from me that every progressive development that emanates from these Labour Benches is always howled at by Opposition Members, who seem to have a lot to conceal in their conduct in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Mason: I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend, but there is a specific Question on the Order Paper regarding Castlereagh, and that will be answered next.
Secondly, I do not deny people the right of going to Northern Ireland gaols, provided that there is valid reason to do so. In many instances prisoners inside gaols make requests for Members of Parliament to go. Most of the hon. Members in the Ulster parties have made visits to the gaols.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Lady wish to raise a point of order?

Miss Maynard: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The point of order that I wanted to raise was that in view of the unsatisfactory reply by the Secretary of State, I reserve the right to pursue the question of an all-party delegation of Members of Parliament to go over to Northern Ireland to see the prisoners and the conditions there.

Castlereagh Interrogation Centre

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is satisfied with the present conditions at the Castlereagh interrogation centre.

Mr. Mason: The accommodation and other facilities for persons detained at RUC Castlereagh compare favourably with those at police stations elsewhere. As for the operational function of the centre, as was announced on 8th June, the Government, at the suggestion of the Chief Constable, are setting up an independent inquiry to consider present police practice and procedures relating to the interrogation of persons suspected of scheduled offences, whether at Castlereagh


or at any other locations in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Whitehead: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Amnesty report appears to substantiate many of the misgivings expressed in the Press and on television and in this House about some of the interrogation procedures at Castlereagh? Does he further accept that we are unlikely to beat the terrorists unless we can do so without double standards and without dirty hands, and that where there are reports of this kind, as has been true in this House for many years—certainly since the time of Hola Camp and beyond—it is right for the House of Commons to question what has gone on?
Therefore, will my right hon. Friend undertake, first, that the inquiry that takes place wil be a judicial inquiry, in which the actions and motives of all those involved in the Amnesty report can be subjected to cross-examination, and, secondly, that the report of the inquiry will be published?

Mr. Mason: I hope that my hon. Friend does not accuse me of double standards. Secondly, it will be a judicial inquiry. Thirdly, the report will be published.
But, again, I want the House to keep the matter in proper perspective. Amnesty International spent eight days in the Province. During the course of the first 11 months of 1977 3,444 people were questioned in Northern Ireland. Amnesty International examined 78 cases. Thirty-nine complainants made their views known, but they had no medical evidence. Twenty-six pieces of medical evidence, thereafter, were placed before Amnesty International, but Amnesty had no complainant. That left 13 cases. Of those 13—complainant and medical evidence—Amnesty International examined only five in detail. It is on that that Her Majesty's Government have decided to be forthcoming and open and to have a major independent private inquiry in order to look at the procedures that might cause this sort of allegation to arise.
I want to seek out the truth, but I want to discern the difference between truth and propaganda.

Mr. Neave: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Opposition will give their

full support to his proposal for an independent private inquiry in this case? Will it be chaired by a judge? I suggest that it should be. When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to announce the details of the inquiry?
Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that the deliberate leaking of this report in advance of publication can only help the cause of those who wish deliberately to discredit the RUC—as some of the remarks of some Labour Members do—and prejudice an impartial inquiry?

Mr. Mason: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his support. I am certainly looking for a key judicial figure to head the inquiry, but I also want a senior person who has knowledge of police practices, allied with someone with medical knowledge, to back it up.

Mr. Fitt: In view of the solemn and binding undertaking given by the British Labour Government to the European Court of Human Rights that ill-treatment and maltreatment would no longer be carried out in interrogation centres in Northern Ireland, is my right hon. Friend aware that the whole credibility of the Government and, indeed, of the Labour and trade union movement is at stake on this issue? Is he aware that the 78 people mentioned by Amnesty International—a respectable and respected organisation—have tried to take civil action in the courts against the detectives who beat them up in Castlereagh, and that the Government and the authorities in Northern Ireland have refused to give the names of those involved? Will he also take into account the fact that this House should have an opportunity to debate the Amnesty International report, when, by a series of questions and answers, we may get to the truth of the matter?

Mr. Mason: As my hon. Friend knows, I have asked Amnesty International to provide the evidence that it has of the 78 cases—witnesses or medical evidence—to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Mr. Fitt: That is no good.

Mr. Mason: If it is prepared to do that, the Director of Public Prosecutions can make his inquiries into those cases and can present his findings to the committee of inquiry so that the committee can take them on board. That is a proposition that I hope Amnesty International will take up.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Amnesty International report is anonymous? It mentions no names and gives no evidence whatsoever about the lawyers, doctors and other people who make the accusations. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House today that when the judicial inquiry is set up, Amnesty International can be brought to it and made to put in the open the accusations that have been made? No one knows who are the people concerned or who has given the evidence that has been supplied in their cases.

Mr. Fitt: Name the police as well.

Mr. Mason: The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is correct. The allegations are unsubstantiated allegations against unnamed police officers, and they are all made anonymously.

Mr. Fitt: Name the police.

Mr. Mason: It happens to be a fact that Amnesty International itself has kept the allegations anonymous. I am now asking whether it is prepared to reveal its information, to ask its witnesses and complainants to break the confidentiality rule but to give the information to the DPP, by whom the confidentiality would be maintained. Flowing from the DPP's examination, Amnesty International can go to the committee of inquiry, and we can ascertain the truth of the complaints.
The answer to the question of the inquiry's being public is this: if during the course of a public inquiry there were substantiated allegations against police officers, it would be difficult to proceed in such cases, because we must consider the immunity of all those who go before a public inquiry. If we keep the inquiry private and there are allegations, whether concerning matters of police discipline or of a criminal nature, it is possible to proceed in those cases. Otherwise, it will not be possible.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I propose to call one more hon. Member from each side of the House.

Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on the Labour Benches who are totally opposed to

terrorism in Northern Ireland, or anywhere else, are nevertheless very perturbed by the Amnesty International report, primarily because we have accepted the Amnesty International reports in relation to Chile, Argentina, the Soviet Union and many other countries? Therefore, we cannot feel that Amnesty International has no case.
My right hon. Friend has made a powerful case that the inquiry should not be held in public, but there is a very good case for its being public and for our making clear once and for all that we in this country do not fight terrorism by methods which are totally opposed to the whole concept of democratic Government.

Mr. Mason: But my hon. Friend would certainly run into the sand of not being able to pursue the truth if the inquiry were in public. First, there would be a whole series of propaganda exercises, in the special circumstances of Northern Ireland. Secondly, we should have to consider granting immunity to everyone who appeared before a public inquiry. How could we proceed thereafter?
Therefore, I am advising the House, on the best knowledge of all the information available, that we can hold the inquiry properly and honestly, and that the public will recognise that. That is why I hope that hon. Members will accept, first, that there should be an independent private inquiry into the practices and procedures in Castlereagh and elsewhere; secondly, that the DPP should be furnished with Amnesty International's evidence, so that it can be properly examined by the independent person from the judiciary in Northern Ireland; and, thirdly, that the independent Police Complaints Board, chaired by a member of the minority community in Northern Ireland, shall also be given the job of examining the pattern of complaints to see whether there are any irregularities. I shall ask the Board to publish its report as well.

Mr. Goodhart: As Amnesty International's charges have had wide publicity, and as the judicial inquiry will necessarily take a considerable time to make its report, what opportunity will the RUC have to answer in public the grave charges that have been made against it?

Mr. Mason: I do not think that there is any doubt that the RUC will make official representations to the inquiry, as indeed will the Police Authority. There will be many opportunities during the course of the inquiry for the police to make their views known.

Construction Industry Workers (Benefit Claims)

Mr. Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has studied the report on Availability of Manpower and "The Double", prepared for the Federation of Building and Civil Engineering Contractors (Northern Ireland) by a firm of management consultants; and what investigations he proposes to undertake as a result.

Mr. Concannon: I confirm that I have received a copy of this report. The report does not name individuals allegedly abusing the social security system, and cannot therefore lead to investigations of individual cases. Many of the difficulties highlighted in the report can be met only by modifying certain employment practices within the construction industry, and the Departments of Manpower Services and Health and Social Security (Northern Ireland) are working closely with the Federation of Building and Civil Engineering Contractors to find solutions.

Mr. Powell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is satisfactory to know that the serious work that went into the report is being utilised by the Government? Is he satisfied that the investigatory staff in the Department is adequate to deal with practices which, however widespread they may be, are certainly extremely damaging so far as they exist?

Mr. Concannon: The matter has been on-going. It was a private investigation by the construction industry, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that other inquiries and other work have been going on simultaneously. We have a special branch of the DHSS in Northern Ireland which has 25 investigatory officers. Last year 416 people were convicted in Northern Ireland for working and claiming benefit. Ninety-one-21 per cent.—were in the building trade. The figures were higher than those for the previous year. In 1977, 26 employers were convicted on account of false state-

ments to sustain claims to benefit. Eight of them were building trade employers. Thirty-one claimants and four employers were jailed for social security frauds. Forty-two claimants and three employers received suspended prison sentences, and 396 claimants and 19 employers were also fined.

Mr. Heffer: Can my right hon. Friend give us an indication of the precise nature of the report? I am being quite honest about this. I do not know the nature of the report. Is it in relation to the "lump"? If it is, does that mean that the United Kingdom's laws on this matter are being contravened? If so, what is the Opposition's attitude? They have constantly opposed Labour efforts to control the "lump" and all the pernicious things that go with it.

Mr. Concannon: The Federation of Building and Civil Engineering Contractors in Northern Ireland was perturbed by the high number of people going on the unemployment register who were also registering as contractors or building trade employers, so it initiated its own investigation. I think that it was very surprised by the outcome, which laid a considerable part of the blame at the construction industry's door.

Republic of Ireland (Foreign Minister)

Mr. Goodlad: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next expects to meet the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Ireland.

Mr. Mason: I agreed with Mr. O'Kennedy when we met on 5th May that we would maintain contact on matters of short- and long-term interest and would meet again as necessary. No dates for further meetings have yet been arranged.

Mr. Goodlad: When the right hon. Gentleman next meets the Irish Foreign Minister will he raise again with him the failure of the Government of the Republic to sign and ratify the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism? Will he emphasise, in the friendliest possible spirit, the great importance attached to this matter in this country as an index of the genuine and total commitment of the Government of


the Republic to the fight against terrorism?

Mr. Mason: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman mentioned the latter point. He knows that the Government of the Republic have reiterated quite strongly that they have a 100 per cent. political commitment to the fight against terrorism. As for the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism, the Government of the Republic know full well the views of Her Majesty's Government—indeed, the views of many hon. Members in this House. They were aware of what was said during the passage through this House of the antiterrorist legislation. I do not think that any reiteration is needed.

Mr. Gow: Does not the common interest of the Republic and the United Kingdom require that we should continue with our representations to the Government of the Republic to the effect that a redefinition of a political offence for extradition purposes is overdue and also that the signature of the Republic to the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism is likewise long overdue?

Mr. Mason: I agree with the latter point made by the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that the Government of the Republic are aware of the point, too. We must recognise, not just with the Irish Republic but with every member of the Council of Europe which has decided to go ahead and sign this convention, that it has to be signed—as it was signed by Her Majesty's Government—without reservations.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: While I appreciate the efforts of the Irish police against what the Taoiseach acknowledges to be a common enemy, may I ask that when a Northern Ireland or Foreign Office Minister next sees Mr. O'Kennedy he will ask him why and when he reversed his opinion of February 1977, based on the opinion of constitutional lawyers, that there was no objection, on the basis of the Irish constitution, to Dublin signing the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism?

Mr. Mason: When next I meet Mr. O'Kennedy I will ask him that. I cannot go into the constitutional difficulties,

niceties and the sophistications of that constitution today.

Belfast (Community Projects)

Mr. Bradford: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the community facilities which are planned for the Ravenhill and Woodstock Roads; and what is the total amount of expenditure for these projects.

Mr. Carter: Primary responsibility for the provision of community facilities rests with Belfast City Council and the area boards, but I understand that the facilities currently planned for the Raven-hill and Woodstock Roads area are a workshop for the handicapped, Ravenhill Road; a community recreation centre, Ormeau Park; a youth club and play centre, Clara Street; a youth centre, Ballynafeigh and a nursery school, Euston Road.
The total cost of these projects is estimated to be approximately £925,000.
In addition, suitable sites are being sought in the area for a family day centre, a children's home, a community centre and a branch library, and alternative uses are being considered for the Cherryville Street health clinic.

Mr. Bradford: While I am grateful for the detail of that reply, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that three of the projects mentioned are not related to the roads mentioned in the Question? Does he appreciate that the public inquiry report for this area is long overdue? Can he confirm that the building of a community centre is recommended in that report? What will be the date of publication of that report for redevelopment area No. 31?

Mr. Carter: The hon. Member is right. The public inquiry has been held and we are currently sifting the views that were made known. People were calling for a variety of projects. We have not yet decided what the final report should contain, what we should recommend and when the report should be made.

Mr. Hardy: Will my hon. Friend and his colleagues explain to the Northern Ireland people very clearly that the logical consequence of their being represented by hon. Members who demand less and less public expenditure in total yet at


the same time continue to put forward rapacious demands for increased expenditure in their own area must be that their position and requests will be treated with considerable disfavour?

Mr. Carter: My hon. Friend is quite right. As I pointed out earlier, it is one of the bitter ironies of life for the Government in Northern Ireland that Unionist Members representing Northern Ireland call for public expenditure increases there and for public expenditure cuts in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us about the site that was earmarked for a community centre on the left-hand side of the Woodstock Road going out from the centre of the city? Can he say why that site has not been developed as a community centre, irrespective of what political flag the people in that area fly?

Mr. Carter: The hon. Member's knowledge of the geography of Belfast is much greater than mine. I shall look into the point that he made. As I told the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) earlier, a public inquiry has been held and all of the representations made at that inquiry are currently being considered.

TUC

Mr. Mike Thomas: asked the Prime Minister when he last met the Trades Union Congress.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I met representatives of the TUC on 28th February. Further meetings will be arranged as necessary.

Mr. Thomas: When my right hon. Friend next meets the TUC will he raise with it the question of industrial democracy? Will he draw to its attention the hypocrisy of the Leader of the Opposition in welcoming the proposals that my right hon. Friend put forward on 23rd May? Will he draw to the attention of the TUC the contrast between that bit of no doubt softened "Fairy Snow" image and the image portrayed by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott), who on Tuesday said that the Conservatives would emasculate the Bullock proposals and oppose any legislation?

The Prime Minister: There will be discussions taking place between the TUC and appropriate Ministers on the White Paper that the Government have issued. I regret that the Opposition seem to be taking a more negative attitude now than they did when the White Paper was first published, especially as I have noticed that some independent observers have gone on record since the publication of the White Paper saying that they thought that it formed a useful basis. We think that voluntary arrangements should be made, as far as possible, with a legislative fall-back.

Mrs. Thatcher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the TUC will be concerned at the threatened closure of the ICI plant on Teesside, with the possible loss of 8,000 jobs—this arising because the Company is not allowed to pay the kind of wages that would attract and keep skilled workers? Will the Prime Minister accept that his policy of depressed wages for skilled workers and high tax for all is leading directly to unemployment?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, I will not accept anything of the sort. That is simply not true. The situation is that there has been a large increase in training for skilled men. I am glad to say that that has more than doubled since the right hon. Lady had any responsibility in the last Conservative Administration. We clearly need more training than we have. As to wage differentials, perhaps one day the right hon. Lady will recognise that there must be some reconciliation between overcoming inflation and a measure of holding back on wages. I do not know whether she accepts that. Perhaps she would like to make it clear.

Mrs. Thatcher: Will the Prime Minister now address his mind to the question? Eight thousand jobs may be lost because the company cannot pay enough to keep skilled workers and to attract more, yet there are training places vacant because the pay is not high enough to encourage people to take up these jobs. In the face of this loss, will the Prime Minister say whether the company can pay enough to keep skilled workers and attract more, or would the company be black listed if it did so?

The Prime Minister: I cannot reply to a question on an individual company. If the right hon. Lady wants a particular answer she should table a Question to the appropriate Minister. On the general question, I note that she is now departing from any proposals for having reasonable restraint on pay. In that case, I warn her that there will be a serious return to inflation. That is something that we have to balance. It is the responsibility of the Government—but, of course, not of the right hon. Lady—to try to get a proper balance between differentials and a restraint on pay. I sometimes wish that she would acknowledge that and recognise that this is a problem if inflation is to be kept down.

Mrs. Thatcher: Is the Prime Minister saying that he would rather have these workers unemployed than allow a flourishing, good company to make its own bargain with its own unions freely and without Government restraint?

The Prime Minister: No, of course I would not say anything of the sort, and the right hon. Lady understands that. What she will not acknowledge is that there is a relationship between the amount of wages paid and the level of inflation. It is the job of the Government to get this right, and we are getting it right. The right hon. Lady will no doubt pursue this point. We shall try in the next pay year to ensure that differentials have a rather better show than they have had this year. This year has been better than last year in that respect. But, overall, I should like to hear the right hon. Lady say one day that she regards the overcoming of inflation as the No. 1 priority of this country.

PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Canavan: asked the Prime Minister what are his official engagements for 15th June.

The Prime Minister: This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. Later today President Ceausescu of Romania and I will be signing a joint statement at the end of our official talks. This evening

I shall be the guest of the President at a dinner in honour of Her Majesty the Queen.

Mr. Canavan: Although he has a busy day, will my right hon. Friend find time to comment on last night's vote, when the separatist extremists in the Scottish National Party combined with the Unionist extremists in the Tory Party to try to defeat the Government? That defeat could have wrecked the Scottish Assembly. In view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's description of the Shadow Chancellor as a dead sheep, does not this mean that the SNP is a crowd of political maggots living off the carcase of the Tory Party?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid that my rhetorical skills do not vie with either those of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or those of my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), but, looking ahead, what we can say is that now, in the light of last night's vote, there is a very good prospect that the devolution Bills will reach the statute book, and that therefore the Scottish people, as well as the Welsh people, will be able to declare themselves, through a referendum, on the subject of the Assembly. When they vote, they will know that there are no thanks due to the Scottish National Party.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Referring to last night's debate, will the right hon. Gentleman take a few moments off in order to congratulate his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his desperate efforts to restore confidence in the Government, and congratulate him even further on the fact that he has attempted to rig the gilt-edged market this morning by relaxing £640 million of special deposits?

The Prime Minister: This decision to extend the facilities in the market was taken not by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer but by the Bank of England, and is a technical adjustment made necessary by the great success in selling gilt-edged since my right hon. Friend announced the increase in minimum lending rate and other factors last week, including the corset.
As the right hon. Gentleman may or may not have noticed, this is a temporary relaxation because of the Government's


and the Bank's success in selling gilts and it will be reintroduced in two weeks' time. I should have hoped the right hon. Gentleman would congratulate the Government on their great success.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: In view of the remarks made by the right hon. Lady, will my right hon. Friend suggest that she should consult some of the Teesside people affected by the troubles to which she referred? If she does so, she will find that there is no glib answer to this very difficult problem. Is my right hon. Friend aware that for every six instrument artificers trained by ICI at that plant, only one has been retained, and that these men have been going to Saudi Arabia, Norway and various other countries, where they are obtaining salaries of between £10,000 and £20,000, which could not be matched under any pay policy?
Is my right hon. Friend aware that his ministerial colleagues are doing their utmost to try to solve this problem, and that the intervention from the right hon. Lady will in no way help towards its solution?

The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth), in whose constituency I believe the factory is situated—or at any rate a number of his constituents work in it—is very well informed about these matters. I do not know why he should assume, however, that the right hon. Lady wants to find an answer to the problem. She just wants to find a way of having a dig at the Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRUSSELS

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister when he next expects to visit Brussels.

The Prime Minister: I have no plans to visit Brussels before the meeting of the European Council, which will be held there towards the end of the year.

Mr. Marten: In view of the suffering which the closure of the Spanish frontier by the dictatorship of General Franco has caused to the people of Gibraltar, will the Prime Minister, when he goes to Brussels, make it a precondition of opening negotiations with the Spanish for entry into the Common Market—which I support—that they should open the

frontier beforehand? Will he ask the Foreign Office to be a little less pussyfooted about it and a little more robust?

The Prime Minister: The opening of the frontier between Gibraltar and Spain is not a matter which is concerned with the entry of Spain into the European Economic Community; it arose long before the Spanish application for entry to the EEC. It is a matter on which I have made many protests to the Spanish Government. In my view—I have said so frequently—the frontier should be opened, quite irrespective of any application by Spain for membership of the Community. The Spanish Government know very well our views on the matter. In my view, the frontier should be opened tomorrow. The question has nothing at all to do with the Community.

Mrs. Castle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that even The Times newspaper has become alarmed at the scandal of rising meat prices in the EEC and the threat which the British housewife now faces to her supplies of less costly New Zealand meat, under the common agricultural policy? Will he go to Brussels and tell the Community that we have no intention of allowing it to force up the prices of New Zealand meat in this country in order to support less efficient French sheep farmers?

The Prime Minister: The Minister of Agriculture has made clear on more than one occasion, and as recently as 20th April, that one of the essential points which govern our attitude to proposals on marketing arrangements for mutton and lamb is that New Zealand's interest and that of our own housewives must be fully safeguarded. That is the Government's policy, and my right hon. Friend has been most vigorous in advancing it in Brussels.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Will the Prime Minister reconsider his firm refusal to take political action in the Council of Europe, particularly in relation to trying to get some sort of coherent policy towards the re-stabilisation of the situation in Africa? This is especially important, in view of the great community of interest between the European countries and the community of interest between the African countries and the members of the European Community.

The Prime Minister: Yes, there is a close identity of interests. Western interests have always been very strong in Africa, but it is the nature of those interests and the way in which they are expressed that is of importance. The Foreign Secretary had discussions with his Foreign Minister colleagues on this matter yesterday, and I think that they are coming to a common agreement on the policy that should be followed.
If in the first part of his question the right hon. Gentleman was referring back to Gibraltar, let me make it absolutely clear that I think that the House, in expressing itself in this way, will influence the attitude of the Spanish authorities. I do not object to pressure on this question, but I do not want to link it with the other issue. It is an issue which stands on its own. That border should be opened.

Mr. Mike Noble: asked the Prime Minister when he last met the Trades Union Congress.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas).

Mr. Noble: When my right hon. Friend meets the TUC, will he discuss with it ways and means of ensuring that reluctant Tory local authorities take advantage of the steps recently taken to restore free school milk? Does my right hon. Friend not agree that this is a much better use of public funds than the tax cuts pushed through by the original milk-snatcher and her friends?

The Prime Minister: I saw the full page advertisement by the National Dairy Council in the newspaper this morning. I think it will have met with pretty general approval, at any rate on the Government side. I hope that Conservative local authorities will take it up. They can, at least for a year, get this milk for children between 7 and 11 at little or no extra cost to themselves. That at least should appeal to them.

Mr. Michael Latham: Are we to understand from the answer that the Prime Minister gave to the House last Tuesday that the Government's policy towards stage 4 of a possible incomes

policy is to find out what trade unions want and then do it? Are the Government going to give any leadership at all?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for advice on tactics, but perhaps he will be kind enough to leave it to me. I think the wisest thing is to hear what the annual conferences of the unions have to say about these matters. For example, an interesting resolution on the subject was passed at NALGO yesterday. I think that we had better weigh up the attitudes and reach our conclusions, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be disappointed whatever we do.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mrs. Thatcher: May I ask the Lord President to state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 19TH JUNE—Supply [22nd Allotted Day]: debate on the Royal Navy.

Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Bill [Lords], and of any that may be received to the Co-operative Development Agency Bill.

TUESDAY 20TH JUNE—Motions on Northern Ireland orders relating to companies, payments for debt, planning, pollution control, education, licensing and matrimonial causes.

WEDNESDAY 21ST JUNE—Supply [23rd Allotted Day]: debate on housing.

Second Reading of the Parliamentary Pensions Bill.

THURSDAY 22ND JUNE—Supply [24th Allotted Day]: debates on the mismanagement of Scotland's oil, and afterwards on the need for a balanced economic order for Wales. These topics have been chosen by the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru.

Motion on the General Practice Finance Corporation (Increase of Borrowing Powers) Order.

FRIDAY 23RD JUNE—Remaining stages of the Homes Insulation Bill and of the Iron and Steel (Amendment) Bill.

Motion on EEC documents on the European Foundation and cultural sector, Nos. COM(77)600, R/325/78, R/ 734/78, R/774/78 and R/2982/77.

MONDAY 26TH JUNE—Supply [25th Allotted Day]: the subject for debate to be announced.

Mrs. Thatcher: As the Government appear to have run short of business, may I put two points to the Lord President? First, he will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) has frequently asked about a merchant shipping Bill, which the Lord President said is ready to be introduced. Has he decided not to introduce it before the Summer Recess? Secondly, I notice that there is one new Bill this week. Will there be any other new Bills? For example, have the Government taken a decision not to reintroduce dividend restraint? Therefore, are we not going to have a Bill?

Mr. Foot: With regard to the second matter, I think that we should see how we proceed, but we have no proposal for bringing such a Bill forward at the moment.
With regard to the merchant shipping Bill, I have made it clear on a number of occasions that although we strongly favour this Bill, and although we have a Bill prepared, it is an extensive Bill and if we were to introduce it into the House, it would take up a considerable amount of parliamentary time.
Contrary to the right hon. Lady's original assumption, it is not the case that we have a great deal of time on our hands. There is a great deal of legislation, which the Prime Minister indicated last night—I am sure to the general satisfaction of the House—and we propose to carry through all that legislation during this Session.

Mr. Bryan Davies: With regard to the business for the middle part of next week, which is dictated by the Opposition, has the fact that it is fairly slack and low key anything at all to do with the proposed Conservative Members' attendance at Royal Ascot? Do we not every year go through this charade when Parliament takes the middle part of this week off while exhorting the rest of the country to stay hard at work?

Mr. Foot: Never having been to Ascot myself—and I am not likely to be there next week-I do not think I should comment on that matter. But I assure the House that we do not regard the business for Wednesday as being a matter of insignificance in any sense at all. There is to be a debate on housing, a very important question, to be followed by a debate on the Parliamentary Pensions Bill, which is also of some interest to the House.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I remind the House that to follow there are two three-hour debates, which arouse a great deal of interest? I would be grateful if questions could be brief and quick.

Mr. Powell: With regard to Northern Ireland business on Tuesday, will the Lord President see that the items are so arranged that there is ample time for the debate on the matrimonial causes and that if any of these items have to be taken at a late hour, they are those on which there is relatively little debate and which are matters of comparatively less importance?

Mr. Foot: I certainly hope that we shall be able to approach all the debates, including the measure referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, in that manner.

Mr. Rooker: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week for a short debate on Early-Day Motion No. 472 so that hon. Members on this side of the House can have the opportunity of inviting the Leader of the Opposition to dismiss the chairman of the Conservative Party, who in his other capacity outside this House as chairman of Pirelli has been involved in an illegal price-fixing ring, ripping off millions of pounds from the Post Office and is now being forced to pay it back?

[That this House notes that the Chairman of the Conservative Party is also Chairman of Pirelli Limited, a firm found to have participated in an illegal price fixing ring; and calls upon the Chairman of the Conservative Party to keep his mouth firmly shut on the issues of law and order, morality and public expenditure and in the forthcoming General Election.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Was the hon. Gentleman referring to a Member of


another place? If he was, it is as much out of order to criticise a Member of another place as it is a Member of this place.

Mr. Rooker: In answer to you, Mr. Speaker, I would draw your attention to the words of Early-Day Motion No. 472, which have been accepted by the Clerks—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must explain to the hon. Gentleman that when that matter comes to be discussed he may make reference to it, but not until it is being discussed.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Rooker: Mr. Rooker indicated dissent.

Mr. Foot: I cannot offer my hon. Friend time to discuss the matter next week.

Mr. Tebbit: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) to be allowed to make those remarks and not to be required to withdraw them?

Mr. Speaker: Did the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) make a reflection upon the honour of a Member of another place?—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes"]—Would the hon. Gentleman like to rise and tell me whether he did?

Mr. Rooker: I simply repeated the words in the Early-Day Motion, which is on the Order Paper of the House of Commons. If it is on the Order Paper of the House of Commons, surely it must be in order for me to repeat the words that are used?

Mr. Speaker: I do not have with me the Early-Day Motion which is on the Order Paper. What is not in order is to cast any reflection on the honour of any hon. Member here or in another place. I am assuming that the hon. Gentleman, by his attitude, is not implying any reflection on the honour of a Member of another place.

Mr. Tebbit: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It was within the hearing of all of us in the House that the hon. Gentleman referred to the noble Lord as being involved in an illegal rip off. That is a matter which quite clearly would reflect upon the honour of the

noble Lord. Therefore, it seems quite clear that the hon. Gentleman is under an obligation, as you said, to withdraw that type of remark.

Mr. Speaker: Quite clearly it is my duty, if a reflection is cast on the honour of an hon. Member of this House or the other place, to ask for it to be withdrawn. That is my obligation and the House expects me to do it. What is more, any hon. Member who had a reflection cast on him would be one of the first to ask me to do it. I invite the hon. Member for Perry Barr to withdraw it.

Mr. Rooker: Mr. Speaker. I am in some difficulty, because—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw".]—That is the last thing I intend to do. I am in some difficulty, because I was informed that if one wishes to reflect on the character of an hon. Member of this House or another place one must do it in a substantive motion. I took advice and, therefore, reworded the Early-Day Motion in accordance with the rules of the House. Therefore, I can see no reason whatever to withdraw what I did in conjunction with the Clerks.

Mr. Speaker: Quite clearly, the hon. Member has not understood what I said earlier. It would be in order for him to make statements if the motion were being discussed. It is not being discussed. I have asked the hon. Member to withdraw, and I must now require him to do so.

Mr. Rooker: I am in some diffi-culty—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member cannot be in any difficulty if he withdraws that statement reflecting on the honour of a Member of the other House.

Mr. Rooker: Very well. I withdraw. I think that the point has been made.

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Member.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that you will appreciate that there is some difficulty about this matter. Apparently, my hon. Friend is empowered to write what he feels on the Order Paper but is not allowed to say it in the House of Commons. I think that it is important that


we should maintain the proper relations between the two Houses. That is why I urged my hon. Friend to withdraw, and I am glad that he did so. Nevertheless, I think that you will agree that this is a most unsatisfactory way in which the matter is left.

Mr. Speaker: I understood the hon. Member for Perry Barr to say that the chairman had participated in an illegal price ring. That is not what the Order Paper says. The Order Paper says that the firm has participated—[Interruption.] Order. We had better get back to business questions.

Mr. Dykes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Without wishing to go back, now that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), as far as we can ascertain, has withdrawn, although it was a somewhat equivocal withdrawal, can you give the House some guidance? Is it not deeply disturbing that a substantial number of Government supporters, with certain political tendencies, who sit below the Gangway are never willing to play by the discipline and rules of this House, a fact which continually bedevils our proceedings?

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) named no individual. Let me say this to the House. It all depends on which side of the House the issue happens to arise where the indignation will lie. I advise the House that we should now leave this and get on with business questions, or I shall have to cut business questions short.

Mr. Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As an illustration of the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, we have just heard my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) referring to a noble Lord who is simultaneously chairman of the Conservative Party and chairman of a company which is referred to specifically in the motion and, therefore, any aspersion was limited entirely to that. But we have also heard in the last few moments another hon. Member speak of certain political tendencies which he alleges are displayed by some Government supporters who will not abide by the rules. Mr. Speaker, can you quote

me one example where hon. Members on this side of the House, sitting below or above the Gangway, have not abided by the rules, and will you ask the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) to withdraw?

Mr. Speaker: These exchanges are getting us nowhere. I suggest that we now get back to business questions.

Mr. Cormack: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has seen yesterday's Select Committee report on the National Land Fund? If he has not, will he read it, and will he arrange for a statement next week on the Government's views on this important report and an early debate?

Mr. Foot: I shall look at the report in the normal way and see what is the proper time for a Government statement.

Mr. Terry Walker: Will my right hon. Friend consider the matter which I have raised before on business questions about the future airports policy of the Government? When may we have a debate about it?

Mr. Foot: I cannot promise anything next week, obviously. However, since my hon. Friend has raised the matter again, I shall certainly look at it and get in touch with him about when a statement can be made to the House.

Mr. Crouch: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Social Services to come to the House today or at the latest tomorrow to report on the situation facing the London hospitals and the threatened closure of the 12 major teaching hospitals in London as a result of a proposed strike by the electricians' and plumbers' union on Sunday night? Does he appreciate that some of the serious consequences which would flow from such a strike might involve the evacuation of some of these major hospitals, each with more than 1,000 patients, which must result in many deaths occurring? It is a matter of major importance, and we must hear from the Secretary of State.

Mr. Foot: I shall, of course, look at the question and see whether it is advisable that the Secretary of State should come to the House and make a statement.

Mr. Corbett: Has my right hon. Friend seen Early-Day Motion No. 434 calling for a ban on the export of live farm animals for slaughter? Can we have an early debate on the matter?

[That this House believes that the export of live farm animals for slaughter or further fattening should cease.]

Mr. Foot: That request has been made before by my hon. Friend and other hon. Members. There is widespread interest in the matter, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is also seriously concerned about it. I cannot give a specific date for a debate. However, we shall consider afresh these representations.

Mrs. Bain: In view of the fact that deliberations on both the Scotland Bill and the Wales Bill are soon to be completed in another place, may we expect an early announcement from the Government about their deliberations on the various anomalies which will apply to the 40 per cent. minimum requirement in the referendums?

Mr. Foot: The Government will examine all the recommendations made by another place about these matters and we shall bring the Government's views on them to the House in the normal fashion. Of course, it is our determination that the Bills should be on the statute book before the end of this Session. I hope that occasionally before that date we shall have some assistance from the hon. Lady.

Mr. Heffer: In view of the fact that the debate next Wednesday is confined purely to housing on an Opposition Supply Day and in view of the fact that the employers' federation for the building industry has now launched a campaign against the nationalisation of the building industry—which the Labour Party is not proposing—may we have a debate in this House at the earliest possible moment on the future of the construction industry which will enable hon. Members like myself, who help to draw up Labour's plans, to explain precisely what those plans are and to answer the nonsense coming from the employers' federation and from the Opposition about this matter?

Mr. Foot: Certainly that would be an admirable subject for a separate debate. But I hope that that will not deter my

hon. Friend and others from raising some of these matters when we have the debate next Wednesday.

Mr. Montgomery: As the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has not raised it this week, may I raise the subject of immigration? Will the Leader of the House say when we are likely to debate the Select Committee report on race relations and immigration? Before the right hon. Gentleman says that this can be taken in Opposition time, will he perhaps give an example of when a Select Committee report has had to be debated in Opposition time? Are not these matters usually dealt with in Government time, and does not the Leader of the House feel that he should tell the right hon. Member for Down, South that he is deluding him on immigration in exactly the same way as he did over the Common Market?

Mr. Foot: The hon. Member has got the situation considerably muddled in his mind. Of course there are occasions when the Opposition choose to have matters which have been brought up by Select Committees debated in their own time, and they are free to do so, or they can debate more general questions which touch upon reports from Select Committees. A lot of the time of the House is available to the Opposition. There is also the fact that sometimes the selection of the subjects which come from Select Committees is made not by the Government but by many of those who serve on the Committees and the Chairmen of those Committees. That must be taken into account as well. I hope that the hon. Member will consider all those factors before making any criticism of the Government in this respect.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: As the House of Commons (Administration) Bill completed its Committee stage some time ago, will my right hon. Friend say when we shall have Report and Third Reading?

Mr. Foot: I hope that I shall be able to make an announcement next week about the time of proceeding with the Bill. I agree with the implication of my hon. Friend's remarks that we must do everything that we can to get that Bill on the statute book this Session.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: As the Government have some problem in raising money,


could we have a debate on the question of the manipulation of the gilt-edged market which at the moment is being turned into a casino by the activities of the Government? I think that we might have an interesting debate on how the Government propose to increase the national debt even further, as they have doubled it in the past four years.

Mr. Foot: That is a completely irresponsible way of raising this important question. The right hon. Gentleman is only revealing his own wounds caused by the Opposition's difficulty in raising votes compared with the comparative ease the Government have had in raising money.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Is the Lord President aware of the growing bitterness among firemen because they feel that they have been double-crossed by their employers in implementing the settlement of the dispute earlier this year? Could he arrange for the Home Secretary to make a statement to the House on this matter next week?

Mr. Foot: I doubt very much whether a statement can be made in that way. I have read the discussions that are proceeding on this question. I doubt whether the best way to proceed at this moment is either by a statement or by discussion in the House. We want to see a full settlement, of course, in the light of the agreement that was reached some months ago.

Mr. Kershaw: Will the Lord President take note of Early-Day Motion No. 464 dealing with the stationing of United States tanker aircraft in the Cotswolds? It appears that the Ministry of Defence has been providing some highly misleading statistics about these aircraft and their characteristics. Could we have a debate next week?

[That this House, whilst mindful of its loyalty to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and to its friendship with the United States of America, nevertheless deplores Her Majesty's Government's proposal to base KC 135 tanker aircraft of the American Air Force in the Cotswolds, whether at Fairford or Brize Norton, bearing in mind the exceptionally noisy and pollutant characteristics of this aircraft, the consequent harm which will be caused to an area of outstanding natu-

ral beauty and high population, and also that the Lincolnshire County Council supported by right honourable and honourable Members of this House are willing to receive these aircraft into their area, which has different environmental and employment conditions; and expresses the hope that Her Majesty's Government will decide against any solution which will do violence to the serenity of the Cotswolds and may result in damage to Anglo-American relations.]

Mr. Foot: There is no possibility of a debate on that matter next week, unless the Opposition raise it. I certainly cannot accept what the hon. Member says about statements from the Ministry of Defence.

Mr. Spearing: Since there has been disquiet over the way in which the Scrutiny Committee recommends matters for debate and the undertakings of the Government in that respect, will the Lord President tell the House when he will bring forward a motion which will put these matters as a resolution of the House?

Mr. Foot: Nobody knows better than my hon. Friend the obligation that I have on that subject. I am committed in the way that I stated to the House when we had a debate on this matter. On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, although I have often acknowledged the difficulties in dealing with these matters, my hon. Friend should acknowledge that the Government have sought to bring these matters before the House, especially in the light of the recommendations of the Scrutiny Committee.

Mr. Marten: When the Leader of the House feels that the House needs a quiet, interesting, slightly academic but very important day's debate, will he consider enabling us to debate the Lords Scrutiny Committee report on the abuse by the Community of Article 100 of the Treaty of Rome relating to the approximation of laws? This is academic but it is very important.

Mr. Foot: I shall look at this matter in the same good-tempered way as that in which the hon. Member has raised it.

Mr. Molloy: In view of the disturbing features connected with road casualties, and the equally disturbing feature of the


way in which massive new road construction—for example, in Greenford in my constituency—makes a contribution to endangering pedestrians life, will my right hon. Friend consider allowing the House to debate this vet}, serious issue, which is the cause of so much loss of life throughout this country?

Mr. Foot: I fully acknowledge the seriousness of the matter, but I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate. There are other facilities for raising these questions in the arrangement of the business of the House.

Several hon. Members: Several hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: I shall call the three hon. Members who have been getting to their feet all the time, and, of course, the Front Bench.

Mr. Tebbit: In order to avoid the necessity of the debate next week for which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) asked, will the Lord President help him and us by coming to the Dispatch Box and saying that the Labour Party has entirely repudiated any suggestion that any part of the building or construction industry will be taken into public ownership? Then we can settle that one. Secondly, will he make the position a little clearer and say whether he actually meant, in reply to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, that there is no intention now of bringing forward a Bill to continue dividend control?

Mr. Foot: On the second matter I have no statement to make now. The first matter is entirely irrelevant to any question of next week's business.

Mr. Adley: As it is expected that the Prime Minister and the President of Romania will be signing an agreement on the BALI-11, may I risk boring the right hon. Gentleman by asking him yet again whether and when we can debate the future of the aerospace industry in general and future aircraft purchases of British Airways in particular?
May I also ask him whether he will ensure that, whoever the Minister is who finally decides to be responsible, some member of the Government will come to the Dispatch Box and make a statement of the Government's intention to return to Chile the aero engines which belong

to that Government and which have been held in this country against the wishes of their owners for four years? Is he aware that there are serious implications when the British Government defy a court order in this way?

Mr. Foot: On the second matter, the Government's attitude on this has been fully explained to the House. On the earlier matter that the hon. Member has raised on a number of occasions, I acknowledge and admire his persistence in his questions, and he must acknowledge my persistence in my replies. He puts the same question, and I give him the same reply.

Mr. Stokes: On a non-controversial note, may I ask the Lord President whether, when the Parliamentary Pensions Bill is discussed on Wednesday—about which many Members have serious reservations—it would not be convenient to consider the matter of Members' salaries at the same time?

Mr. Foot: I do not think it would be desirable or necessary to do this. Of course, we shall consider the question of Members' salaries before the end of this Session. It is perfectly possible for the Parliamentary Pensions Bill to be considered next week, as I have suggested. What we are doing in that Bill is carrying out in full the spirit and the letter of the recommendations that were made by the Royal Commission, and in that spirit the proposals should be accepted by the House.

Mr. Whitelaw: Could the Leader of the House give a categoric assurance that the Government will resolve their differences in time to publish a White Paper on the report of the Annan Committee on Broadcasting before the House rises for the Summer Recess?

Mr. Foot: The right hon. Member has been a Member of divided Cabinets much longer than I have. I am a comparative novice in these matters. But I must point out that he has invited me to commit a breach of the Official Secrets Act right here at the Dispatch Box on the very day that we are discussing official secrets. I think that the right hon. Member is asking a bit too much even for him. I am always eager to please him—especially on a day when he is feeling a little dejected.


I was searching around for some way in which I could come to the rescue of him and his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition but, eager as I am, I am afraid I cannot assist.

Mr. Molloy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We acknowledge that the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) in his Early-Day Motion was difficult for the whole House and for you, Mr. Speaker. However it raised many points, some of which were mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Some of us are now in difficulty. We acknowledge that it is the custom and the practice of the House that if, on business questions, a Member of this House wishes to draw it to the attention of the Lord President, he can enlarge on the Early-Day Motion that he is quoting. Will you be good enough, Mr. Speaker, either tomorrow or early next week, to make a statement to guide us on this matter?

Mr. Speaker: When the exchanges began, I did not have the actual wording of the motion before me. The House will realise that it was supplied to me in the course of the discussions. The difference was that the motion attacks a firm and the hon. Gentleman linked the matter, as I understand it, to an individual. We all understand the rules, and I was obliged to the hon. Member for Perry Barr for withdrawing the comment, as he did at my request.

Mr. Kershaw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I, too, wish to return to the matter relating to that Early Day Motion. You have said, Mr. Speaker, that the motion concerns only a firm. But if you examine the last two lines you will see that that is not quite true. It demands of the chairman of the Tory Party various personal actions and casts aspersions upon him. May I seek your ruling whether the motion is properly on the Order Paper at all.

Mr. Speaker: The answer is that it is properly on the Order Paper or it would not be there. Secondly, the various requests to the Chairman of the Conservative Party could be debated on a substantive motion, but there is no such motion before the House.

STANDING ORDER NO. 9

Mr. Flannery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wrote to you about the possibility of a Standing Order No. 9 debate. It is true, and I apologise, that because of circumstances beyond my control I was unable to write to you earlier. I was wondering whether you intended to give me the opportunity to raise an important matter under that Standing Order.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman contacted me—I received a message at about 2 p.m.—about a request for a Standing Order No. 9 debate. If we do not keep firmly to the rules, I shall be in dire trouble. Hon. Members will take the view "I have put in my motion only five minutes later than the other hon. Member and therefore my case also should be considered."

Mr. Flannery: I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I am deeply grateful to the hon. Gentleman for accepting my ruling.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.

Mr. Speaker: With the permission of the House, I shall put the two Questions on the Statutory Instruments together.

Ordered,
That the draft International Finance Corporation (Further Payment to Capital Stock) Order 1978 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Farm Capital Grant (Variation) (No. 2) Scheme 1978 (S.I., 1978, No. 768), be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Foot.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[21ST ALLOTTED DAY]—considered

Orders of the Day — FISHING

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Graham.]

4.4 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton: In initiating what will be a short debate, I should like to give a formal welcome to the Fifth Report of the Expenditure Committee on the fishing industry and to say to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture, and also to the Leader of the House as he is present, that the fact that the Opposition are taking this time today, in no way discharges the Government's obligation to give time at a later date for a full discussion of this important report.
We sought this debate today because, as we see it, the horizon is rapidly closing in on the fishing industry. It is becoming harder, not easier, to sustain confidence in the future of the industry. As time has passed, we have recovered none of the lost fishing opportunities, and we are now not even negotiating with third countries.
I wish to remind the Minister of an Answer he gave the other day on 9th June—column 282 of Hansard—to my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall). My hon. Friend asked why it was permitted to some member countries to negotiate with third countries and why that opportunity was denied to us. The right hon. Gentleman answered very reasonably that to date he had preferred to hope for an all-round settlement, and added that thus far he had not sought to negotiate bilaterally. Perhaps the Minister would like to take that point a little further today.
Not only have we not recovered any of the lost fishing opportunities, but I would emphasise that the depletion of stocks has continued and time eats away at the strength and heart of the industry.
The Opposition do not think it right to continue to drift. There may have

been grounds at one time for hoping that attitudes which seemed to us in this House to have been unfair and shortsighted would change. Unfortunately, events have shown this to be most unlikely. The rush to get fish has not been moderated by either prudence or justice.

Mr. Robert Hughes: We told you that six years ago.

Mr. Peyton: If the Community is enlarged, it is virtually certain that that rush will be considerably intensified.
There is no point in arguing today how we reached this point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] These cheap jibes by certain Labour Members are much in their character. I think if we could forget them it would be helpful. I emphasise that there is no point in arguing how we got to this point or who failed to achieve what either in negotiation or renegotiation. We have a very good answer to the cheap and characteristic jibes of Labour Members.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Then give us the answer.

Mr. Peyton: It would be a pity if the House today allowed this debate just to decline into one more of those sterile exercises to which we have all become accustomed of late.
What has happened—and we have got to deal with this matter—is that better boats and more efficient, though less discriminating, methods of locating and catching fish have brought excessive pressure on stocks. The 200-mile limits which are now common and which were not dreamed of only a few years ago have totally altered the scene. As a result of these limits, we have lost the right to fish waters in which only a few years ago we took as much as a third of our catch.
Let me briefly remind the House of two sets of figures illustrating what has happened. Whereas in 1967 we in this country caught 350,915 tonnes of cod, that amount last year declined to 147,907 tonnes—a very serious loss to us. The distant water fleet over the same period has declined from 182 boats to 98. We are now offered a share which seems to us to be exceedingly meagre—a share not in a market but, unusually and exceptionally, in a resource.
The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that this is the only occasion in which it is suggested by the Community that a resource as opposed to a market should be shared and regarded as common. The total allowable catch is to be parcelled out according to criteria —I choose my words carefully and do not wish to exaggerate—which seem to us to have been nicely rigged to suit almost every country, save the United Kingdom. We are asked to share this resource with people who, having fished out their own waters, show themselves now ready and eager to do the same in ours—people to whom conservation appears to be only a word, which is completely unreal in action however useful it may be in debate.
I do not share the right hon. Gentleman's view on Europe, which I regard, and always have done, as negative and unhopeful. However, I hope that the fact that we do not share the right hon. Gentleman's views about membership of the Community will not be taken to mean that we are more ready to accept a deal which I would regard as shabby. Nor does it in any way weaken the support which I now offer to him so long as he resists demands which we regard as unreasonable and intrusive, and so long as he continues to show himself willing to take active steps now to conserve stocks.
The time for mere words has passed. The right hon. Gentleman has perhaps been a little too patient over this matter. On 16th March the right hon. Gentleman used these words:
Of course, I shall bring forward measures
—he was referring to conservation measures—
and tell this House about them at the due moment."—[Official Report, 16th March 1978; Vol. 946, c. 626.]
I should like to express to the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of Conservative Members the hope that he will shortly bring those measures forward with the intention of enforcing them with vigour.
I do not believe that it will be enough merely to extend the present measure, important as they are. Nor is it wise for people to continue to draw comfort from the notion that no settlement is better than a bad one. That would be most unwise. It ignores the weakness which will be engendered throughout our industry by a prolonged stalemate.
What we need now is either a settlement with which the industry can live or a set of measures to conserve stocks, to be enforced with vigour within our limits against all corners, including ourselves, because so long as conservation measures are taken against all and are not discriminatory there is nothing illegal about them.
The right hon. Gentleman is beginning to run out of time, as is the industry. I was interested to see the report in The Times today of a speech made by the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) in the European Parliament. The report of his speech said:
Secondly, there was a misplaced belief that there was likely to be an election in the United Kingdom and that there would then be a more amiable and pliable minister than Mr. John Silkin. He saw no such likelihood.
In so far as I can speak with any authority about the state of mind of a possible successor to the right hon. Gentleman, I endorse entirely what his hon. Friend the Member for Durham said. Conservation by measures taken unilaterally would, in my view and I think in the view of the right hon. Gentleman, if I have understood him correctly, be second best to an international agreement, the ingredients of which were fairness and prudence.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman made it clear earlier that he thinks that it is now time for action. He has repeated that unilateral conservation measures are second best to international agreements. What positive steps has he to put to my right hon. Friend the Minister for action that can be taken in other parts of the discussions with the Common Market in order to prepare an agreement?

Mr. Peyton: If only I could curtail my natural generosity and allow my judgment to have greater weight, I would never give way to the hon. Gentleman. There is no point in doing so. All he does is to ask me to say what I am going to say in a few minutes' time in any event. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do himself better justice by remaining in his seat.
A regime of comprehensive conservation measures would have certain advantages for us now. First, they would show to all that we are in earnest. Secondly, they would offer a base for negotiating


with countries of like mind. Thirdly, they would be the best way open to us to safeguard stocks against the consequences of short sightedness and greed. Such a regime should comprehend a certain number of measures.
I shall attempt to be as precise as it is possible to be from these Benches. The resources of the Government in such matters are far greater than those available to Oppositions, but those measures should be directed both to the total effort and to the fishing methods used.
In the first place there should be licensing of boats and possibly of skippers. In no circumstances would we be prepared to entertain or take seriously the transparently inadequate measures of catch quotas. They are a waste of time. Secondly, we believe that the pout box should be enlarged and the herring ban extended. Thirdly, the fishing of breeding grounds should be considerably restricted.
I turn to the methods, and the suggestions that I am now making are not new. Nor is the list meant to be exhaustive. Vessels should be permitted to carry only one type of gear. Minimum mesh should be increased. Beams should be limited to 8 metres. Purse seining should be strictly controlled. There should he new rules to cover industrial fishing and by-catches.
If the right hon. Gentleman were to introduce such a stringent body of rules, he would be obliged to look again at the means that he has available of enforcing them and giving them teeth. Without such measures, young and immature fish will continue to be destroyed to a point at which it is likely that nothing will be left. Inshore fishermen particularly, if matters are allowed to continue as they are, will become the witnesses of a great disaster to their livelihoods.
I recognise that constraints such as I am now advocating will be unwelcome. There will be those who feel themselves unfairly picked out, that these controls are particularly aimed at them and that they will cause them loss and hardship. I hope, however, that they will pause and reflect that without such measures there can be little hope for the long-term future of the industry.
I understand from the newspapers that Mr. Gundelach has been here over the

last few days. I have not had the advantage of seeing him, so I am dependent upon the right hon. Gentleman and the Press for information as to Mr. Gundelach's views. It does not appear that Mr. Gundelach brought anything useful with him or was even very concerned about the opinions that might be expressed in this debate. Certainly, as far as I know, he has done nothing to modify the proposals which have previously come from the Commission and which I and my colleagues regard as totally unacceptable.
For us in this House—and I am bold enough here to attempt to speak for us all—there seems to be no alternative but to show ourselves to be both determined and united and to make clear to those in Europe who have not really made much effort to understand the degree of feeling that exists on this issue in this country that we are neither arrogant nor intransigent newcomers but that we believe and will seek to persuade others to believe, that it would be wiser to cherish rather than to loot a very valuable resource.
I do not always speak in these terms, but on this occasion we wish the Minister well. We hope that he will bring back with him either a settlement or a readiness to act immediately on the lines that I have indicated. We also hope that he will take an early opportunity after his return to allow the House to judge the position that has been reached and the adequacy of the measures that I hope he will then be prepared to propose.

4.22 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) began his speech in a rather sarcastic and unhappy mood, using phrases such as "sterile debate", "party jibes" and so on. I know that he will not accuse me of adopting that approach, because there are in Hull at least 1,000 fishermen on the dole. We had more than 2,000 men on the deck not so long ago and now we have 1,000 going to sea in the Arctic. This is a serious situation and hon. Members from Hull are not happy about it. However, I agree with what the right hon. Member said about supporting the Minister.
In so many of our debates little new is said and we hear the same things time and again. I hope to include in my speech


a number of questions for my right hon. Friend the Minister. I hope that he will think that they are fair, and I shall endeavour to stay within the lines of the debate.
My right hon. Friend knows all the answers, but his job is to convince at least six or seven other Ministers and a gentleman named Gundelach, the Commissioner who, when he was in London, should have paid a visit to the House and had an open meeting with Back Benchers. The reason why he did not come here is his business, but I believe that he should have done so.
I speak unashamedly in constituency terms as an hon. Member for Hull, which has a deep sea fishing fleet. I shall not be chauvinistic, but I shall certainly be nationalistic because the livelihood, happiness and standard of living of at least 1,000 families in Hull have been affected in the past year or two. My hon. Friends in Hull and I feel like the mining MPs who get their pits closed about them in South Wales and elsewhere.
I do not want to speak as a Member of the European Assembly either, because I find that some of my colleagues who go to Europe begin to become statesmen and return with an international view. I do not want to put an international view or an EEC view. I want my people in Hull to be defended by those hon. Members who go to New York, Luxembourg or any of the other "bourgs".
Equal access and fair shares as postulated by the EEC are academic when I look at the geography of the seas about these islands. In passing, may I say, since my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) is likely to speak in this debate, that both banks of the Humber are suffering, and I urge the people on Humberside that Hull and Grimsby, as sister ports, should cease any petty squabbling. I mean this sincerely. The industry itself is setting an example to local government and particularly to the town clerk of Grimsby, for whom I have a high personal regard. I do not want polemics flying about the Humber, and I applaud the industry for sending at least six big boats to Hull to do what is sensible—namely, to have a specialised deep sea fleet there and to share the work of catching fish, while the smaller boats like the seiners have left Hull and gone

south towards the North Sea to swell the function of our sister port of Grimsby, which is inshore and middle water fishing.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about encouraging understanding and avoiding polemics between the two banks. I hope that, as a contribution to that, the transfer of the six freezers will be cancelled so that polemics can be avoided.

Mr. Johnson: If we are to share the work, we should let one port do the specialised work of deep sea fishing for which it is fitted, with a £1 million dock, and the estuary do its waters of the North to go beyond that this matter in our lsewhere.
The industry is wallowing in a mess. One cannot speak in anything but the harshest and saddest terms about the condition of the industry. The loss of jobs that we suffer is not being suffered by our EEC partners. I bet that Boulogne has not lost 1,000 fishermen to the dole. I echo the views of the Opposition. It is all give and no take in Europe. We are coming off very badly. Ports in Belgium, Holland, Germany and Denmark are not suffering to the same extent as the Humber, and particularly Fleetwood, which is having a devil of a time.
Conservation is the word of the day. Our people are playing the game. The Lowestoft men have adopted not merely 70-mm. nets but 80-mm. nets, but there are Frenchmen fishing off Sussex and Cornwall with 40-mm and 50-mm nets catching nephrops and other small fish. It is a fact that our people are taking actions that the other side are not observing.
In Hull, the Skippers Guild tells me that the Danes have done a deal with the Norwegians and the Germans have done a deal with the Canadians. Why are we not making such deals? The Danes are in the EEC and they should be observing a code within the team of nine States. We are not allowed by the Commission to do what the Danes are doing, and this continual blockage means that we have a stalemate for our people in this country.
I also understand that the Belgians have made an agreement with Iceland. They have never fished there before, except to


the extent of catching 38,000 tons at about 70 miles off Iceland. We were catching 200,000 tons there at one time, so I do not understand why, now that we have buried the hatchet, we cannot get something going. At present we have nothing.
The Norwegian quota for the EEC was about 98,000 tons. That will be exhausted by August. We have had about 50,000 tons to 54,000 tons of that quota and we have had some good fishing in its White Sea in the past few months. However, by August our vessels will be back in dock and tied up. This year we must not allow, as last year, the French and Germans to go in and fish above their quotas, leaving less for us of the 98,000 tons or whatever it may be in the final analysis.
Everybody seems to get a decent deal except the British. There are others who cheat, and our EEC partners well know what is happening. They know that the most fish lie off our shores. The waters of Belgium, Holland and Denmark, for example, are fished out.
We have all emphasised the need for conservation, but I have always argued that overfishing can be stopped only by the direct action of the nearest interested party, which by definition must be the coastal State. It is the British, for example, who want to keep stocks in their waters, not those in Jutland or elsewhere. As the coastal State most concerned, we alone are motivated by the desire or need to protect the fish about our shores.
Formerly, the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission paid ludicrous lip service to conservation and paid even less attention to stopping those who were cheating. Various proposals have been put forward that are plain poppycock. A Member of the Opposition, in a handout in the Hull newspapers of all places, suggested that there should be a European fleet flying some sort of European flag. It was suggested that such a fleet would enforce, discipline and stop cheating and poaching in our territorial waters. I will have nothing of that. I do not believe that it is possible to have an international fleet doing a job of that nature.
I end on a domestic note. David Cairns, the national officer of the Transport and General Workers Union, sent all Humberside Members a telegram not so many days ago in which he asked them

to approach the Secretary of State for Employment about compensation for all unemployed fishermen over 50 years of age. My right hon. Friend has been considering that proposition, as has my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The reply flung back at us is "Who are eligible?" We are asked who would qualify among the men over 50 years of age. I urge my right hon. Friend and his colleagues to get down to this matter and to make a decision. For example, long service is a factor which might well be taken into account. The union wishes to have an answer.
We are told that much depends on a decasualisation scheme. What is happening about that? Who will finance it? Is it to be financed by Her Majesty's Government or by the industry? I gather that the industry will not play. However, if it is good enough for the Government to give millions of pounds for compensation to car workers and steel workers who are redundant, it is surely not impossible for them to find £¼ million—at any rate, £½ million—for fishermen who are in such serious plight.
I began by saying how difficult it is to say anything new. I end by saying nothing that is new. I end by confirming what was said by the right hon. Member for Yeovil—namely, that the whole of the Chamber is behind my right hon. Friend in all the work that he is doing. It is a pity that Mr. Gundelach did not come to this place to confirm that the whole House is behind him. If my right hon. Friend can succeed in his task next Tuesday of convincing the other EEC Ministers that he is making a good and incontrovertible case on behalf of our fishermen, he will go down in history alongside his famous predecessor in office, Tom Williams.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: It is a short debate and I want only to cover part of the large subject of fishing.
First, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food may go to Brussels knowing full well that he has the total support of the House throughout all parties in pressing upon those in Brussels that their present attitude towards British fishing is intolerable to us, and that we


are determined to preserve the fish in the North Sea and to ensure that the industry is reasonably treated.
I thought I heard the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) say that he is more amiable than the Minister. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not change his nature. I think that we can rely upon him to show a suitable degree of unamiability on this subject. However, I may have misunderstood him.

Mr. Peyton: The right hon. Gentleman did misunderstand me. I never claimed a degree of amiability. I said that I did not always use such amiable words to the Minister as I was able to use this afternoon.

Mr. Grimond: I am glad to have that reassurance.
I say in all seriousness that Mr. Gundelach should be under no illusion that a change of Government in Great Britain will make any difference to our approach. He should recognise that the Liberal Party—I am sure that this applies to the Conservative Party—wholeheartedly supports the Minister's efforts to maintain our fishing industry. It is no more tolerable that fish in the North Sea should be dredged up than it is for us to cut crops in France or shoot deer in Germany.
I do not want to deal at length with industrial fishing.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The right hon. Gentleman has now referred twice to the North Sea. I ask him to remember that there is equal concern about the fishing industry in Wales, the South of England and the West of England. It is an all-coastal matter. I hope that he will not leave the impression that we are concerned only about the North Sea.

Mr. Grimond: That is so. Unamiability extends to the Irish Sea, the Channel and the Atlantic. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I do not want it to be thought that I am being in the least flippant. It is certain that the House resents a great deal of what has come out of Brussels and supports the efforts made to protect the industry. That is true of all the coasts and all the ports around the whole of Britain.
I do not want to go at length into all the matters concerning the fishing indus-

try. Industrial fishing is extremely important. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will press upon his colleagues in Brussels that there should be better control over the size of mesh and the extension of the pout box.
I shall say a few words about the situation with which we are faced in the North Sea, as that is the area with which I am principally concerned. As I have said, I agree that the Channel, the Irish Sea and part of the Atlantic are equally important.
Is the Minister able to say anything further about the future of herring? We have heard rumours that there may be a total ban upon herring fishing. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the ban upon herring has had serious effects upon herring processors in Shetland. I should like to know his forecast for the coming year. At one time, the indication was given that there might be a quota for the coming year for processors in Shetland and in Scotland.
Is the Minister able to say whether the conservation measures for herring in the North Sea have been effective? I have been told that there are shoals of herring around Shetland. I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman's scientists confirm that.
I emphasise that while many fishing ports have a hinterland some of the ports in my constituency have not. If fishing should fail in the islands of Whalsay and Skerries there would be nothing to do. I am not exaggerating when I say that the islanders would have to be evacuated. There is no question of any other employment being available. That is a point that cannot be made too often.
I maintain my view that we should insist strongly upon an exclusive total limit. I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) that if we are to enforce regulations the only people who will enforce them will be those who are the interested parties —namely, those whose livelihood depends upon fishing in their areas. Those from outside are concerned only with dredging up the fish and moving elsewhere. They will never enforce effective conservation.
We hear a great deal about licensing and quotas. It would be possible to divide the North Sea into areas and to set up licensing boards for the different areas, which would be concerned with licensing


boats in those areas. The number of licences granted would be related to the quotas expected to be caught in those areas, and the licensing authority might have other powers of a general conservation nature.
I hope that first preference will be given to boats which have traditionally fished in those areas—the local boats. No doubt on second preference notice would be taken of traditional customs of fishing in different parts of the North Sea. Essentially, the authorities should be local, should be concerned with conservation, and should allocate sufficient boats to catch the quotas allocated for those areas.
I am not clear whether these are the types of licensing and quotas which are envisaged. There have been certain other rumours about licensing and quotas. It has been suggested that all boats now fishing in the North Sea should be licensed, but that their licences should be withdrawn if they exceed their quotas.
I think that at the moment the only quotas are those enforced by the fishing industry. The industry is becoming rather concerned about this matter. For instance, there is a haddock quota in certain parts of the North Sea which the industry is supposed to enforce, and does up to a point, but clearly it cannot continue to do that in the long term.
Another point that has been made about licensing causes me considerable alarm. The suggestion is that licences might be bought and sold. That would or might he disastrous for the inshore industry. If it were possible for large firms to buy up licences in certain ports, they could virtually put those ports out of the fishing business. I do not know how serious the threat is. It might work in some places. I should like information about that matter. At first sight, I regard it with considerable alarm.
Does the Minister consider that the preferential policies, which were much talked about a few months ago, are the most likely advance in the Common Market? If so, and if they are to be associated with licences and quotas, will the House have an opportunity to discuss and, if necessary, vote on the Common Market's proposals before they come into force? That is an important matter. We can send the Minister to Brussels with

the opinion of the House behind him, but will he come back with some agreement before these matters are enforced?
This is a short debate. There are many other questions concerning fishing which could be raised, but I content myself with those.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: I shall make a short intervention because, as has already been said, everything that can be said about this subject has been said, and many hon. Members on both sides of the House want to say it.
I should like to make two constituency points concerning the remarks made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson). I agree that, in the present state of the industry, any squabble between Hull and Grimsby would be disastrous for the industry as a whole.
The second point concerns compensation. A large number of freshers have now gone for good. The men who worked in them are now on the dole and can get no compensation because they did not have long-term contracts. This may be a growing problem. It is a problem about which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West and I have already approached the Minister. I hope that the Minister will again look into this very human problem.
I fully support the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). The Minister will go to Brussels with the full support of the House. But he has two alternatives. The first is to reach an agreement. The second, if he does not reach an agreement, is to come back and take some positive measures to protect and conserve British fishing.
I believe that the Minister's predecessors and himself have perhaps already made too many concessions to get an agreement. We started with a 200-mile zone, went back to 100 miles and then to 50 miles. That was in 1975 and 1976, before the right hon. Gentleman's time. Then we had the zig-zag and then the 12 miles-plus dominant preference in the 12-mile to 50-mile zone. There are not many more concessions that the Government can make.
What do we need? We need control over our 200-mile exclusive economic


zone and over conservation measures in that area. Also, as the industry has made clear, we need a 50-mile exclusive zone.
We are bound to have quotas. Even if we have an exclusive zone, there will be swap agreements. Therefore, we must have quotas. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil said, there must be effort, not catch, quotas. I hope that that point has penetrated into the heads of the Commission in Brussels. To offer the United Kingdom, which in broad terms has 60 per cent. of the fish in our waters, only some 22 per cent. is not only laughable but insulting.
We must phase out historic rights, particularly on the South Coast. At the moment, there are historic rights of six miles to 12 miles. Those must go. After all, our historic rights in Iceland were phased out. I accept that it might take three years or five years, but I suggest that in any agreement they must go.
If an agreement is reached, I hope that the Minister will allow the House to debate it so that we are not faced with a fait accompli. That could produce difficult constitutional questions, because if the House throws out an agreement already reached in Brussels it will not do this country, the fishing industry or anybody concerned any good. I am sure that the Minister has that point in mind.
What will happen if there is no agreement? First, speaking on behalf of the distant water fleet, we must turn straight away to bilateral agreements. Recently I asked the Minister of State why, if there had already been bilateral agreements between Norway and Denmark in the Baltic, between West Germany and Greenland and between Belgium and Iceland, we could not have similar agreements.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Between Denmark and Sweden.

Mr. Wall: Between Denmark and Sweden in the Baltic. If they can do it, why cannot we? I hope that, if things go wrong and the position today is unchanged, the Minister will immediately enter into bilateral negotiations with some of these countries which are of such importance to distant water vessels—Norway, the Soviet Union, Canada and, after its General Election in a few weeks, Iceland.
Secondly, we must have control of conservation measures. I would emphasise only two points which have already been brought out. The first is the one-net provision. That is the most important of all. I suggest that it would be very effective from the point of view of future negotiations with the EEC.
We must also have enlargement of the pout box. The industry is keen to have that as soon as possible.
The effect of these continued negotiations and the failure to reach agreement is serious for the industry. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West was abroad on parliamentary duties when we had a meeting of the joint fisheries committee of all parties a few days ago. I was particularly impressed by the fact that when the distant water section of the industry was asked whether it was prepared to wait, as the inshore section wanted to do, even for three years for a proper agreement, it said that it would, despite the fact that it needs bilateral arrangements and knows that it will not get them until the common fisheries policy has been decided. That shows that not only the House, but all sections of the industry are united behind the Minister's efforts. I hope that Europe will take note of that fact. We may be in the minority in the EEC, but we are the most important minority on fishing matters. We are united and we wish the Minister well.
The distant water fleet as a whole has contracted by about 67 per cent. in the last 10 years. To quote figures to show the effect on these expensive and important vessels, the Hull fleet in 1967 had 83 freshers and 14 freezers, a total of 97, and in 1977 it had 27 freshers and 34 freezers, a total of 61. That is a big reduction for one port. An even more startling reduction is that of the cod catch. I shall not weary the House by repeating the figures, but the cod catch has been reduced by two-thirds in 10 years, and this is certainly the most important catch for fish and chip shops.
We want action. We wish the Minister well. We hope that he will be able to knock the heads of his colleagues together so that we can come to a satisfactory agreement in Brussels. If he does not reach agreement, I hope that he will come back to the House as soon as


possible and tell us that he is taking positive conservation measures, unilaterally if necessary, but, of course, nondiscriminatory.

4.51 p.m.

Mr. Robert Hughes: It is appropriate that we should be having this debate today, since my right hon. Friend goes to Brussels on Monday to continue discussions on the common fisheries policy. It is right that we should acknowledge our gratitude to the Opposition for providing half a Supply Day so that we can make our views known before our representatives go to Brussels.
The length of time that passes before coming to an agreement is characterised in two ways. First, apparently there is no urgency among the other eight members of the Communilty to come to an agreement. They realise that time is slipping by and that our derogation from the full ravages of the common fisheries policy lasts only until 1982. That date is approaching quickly. Therefore, there is no incentive for them to come to an agreement. Time is on their side, as they see it.
Secondly, there is a profoundly mistaken view that if they carry on in their regular dilatory manner not only will the Government weaken but so will the Opposition and the industry. Their view is that if they delay people will say "For heaven's sake, things are so bad, confused and difficult, and it is so impossible to plan for the future, that we had better accept whatever is offered, even though it is totally unsatisfactory, because at least that will end the confusion and complexity."

Mr. Wall: By 1982, according to the Common Market rules, the limits come back to our shorelines. From that point of view there is no time on our side.

Mr. Hughes: I am sorry. I cannot have expressed myself clearly. I was saying that the derogation from the full ravages of the provisions lasts only until 1982. Time is on the side of the other eight members' fishery interests. The hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) and I are not in disagreement.
Another matter has also characterised the views of the eight. They have seen speculation, which increases from time to time, that there will be an election. They

are probably as interested in the outcome of that election as we are. I was grateful to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) for making absolutely clear that should there be a change of Government following an election—however unlikely a change of Government may be —his side of the House is clear where it stands in relation to its support for the Government's proposals for the defence of the industry.
I do not wish to introduce a discordant note, but I must point out that the assurances which were accepted by the right hon. and learned Member for Hex-ham (Mr. Rippon), that we could discuss the CFP once we were members of the Community, did great damage to the industry. I am pleased about the conversion of those who now say that the CFP is a disaster.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: We should correct the record, because what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) stated was more substantial. He said that Britain regarded its fishing industry as an essential national interest. Essential national interests are subject to the unanimity-of-agreement rule. My right hon. and learned Friend made that absolutely clear, and our acceptance was explicitly subject to that.

Mr. Hughes: I do not wish to prolong my speech by going too far into history. The astonishing naivety of the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham is now confirmed. Had he believed that the fishing interests were essential to our national interest he would never have signed the Treaty of Accession, given the terms of the CFP. We said that at the time. The one regret that I have is that the fishing industry as a whole did not accept what we said in the referendum. The CFP was cobbled together in the last days before we joined. Astonishingly, assurances were accepted.

Sir John Gilmour: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Hughes: I shall not give way, because many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. The longer I speak, the less time will be available for others. I want to make a brief speech.
We have destroyed the idea that we shall weaken if time slips away and the


illusion that there may be a change of Government with a different attitude. All the parties are united. Even the Scottish National Party is united in supporting the views of English fishermen. I hope that if a Member of that party does speak he will make it clear that the interests of Scottish fishermen are the same as the interests of English, Welsh and Irish fishermen and all those who depend on the sea for their livelihood.
We must not show division in the House and refer to our parochial interests, important though they are. On an occasion such as this we must stand together. We are united in what is needed. We need proper licence arrangements and exclusive control up to the 200-mile limit, with policing by the coastal State. We are united in our view that the mesh size should be increased. We are united in our view that only one mesh should be carried when a vessel goes to sea. There are no differences in our approach to the central issues.
But there is a difference between us —I had hoped to persuade the right hon. Member for Yeovil to agree with me when I intervened earlier—about the way in which we should go about getting what we want. Unilateral conservation measures and changing the size of the pout box and its alignment, important as they are in the long and short term, are second best to a proper agreement which guarantees our essential interests. Those matters are second best to an international agreement.
How do we obtain an international agreement? It is strange that suggestions have been made that my right hon. Friend has been too amiable in discussions in the Common Market. The charges usually are that he is too intransigent. My right hon. Friend has been amiable. He has tried to play the game by the rules and to negotiate not by saying "I stand here and shall move no further" but by looking for alternative propositions and methods of achieving the same end. He has tried to ensure that our fishermen are secure for the future. He has tried to find ways of coming to terms with the essential fishing interests. He has tried to find alternative propositions and he has recognised the deep-seated fears of fishermen in other countries. He has gone some way

to try to meet the others, and yet they have not attempted to meet us.
I was asking the right hon. Member for Yeovil whether he agreed that we should begin to link together the fishing negotiations and other day to day negotiations in the Community.
I have always felt that the weakness of our case is that we approach these matters in compartmentalised negotiations. We discuss fishing one week, agriculture the next, wine the week after, perhaps, and trading or financial agreements the week after that. The time is long overdue when we should tell our EEC partners bluntly that if they do not make serious moves very quickly to come to terms with us—we do not expect them to meet us on every point, although I believe that we have given a lot and we may have to give more—on catch sizes, licensing arrangements, and the types of control that we regard as essential, we shall completely stop discussions with them on all other aspects of Common Market policy. I do not say that we should walk out of the Common Market. That is neither possible nor feasible.
I hope that tonight the Opposition will take the opportunity of saying that if we can persuade the Government accordingly after Monday—assuming, as I assume, that we shall get nowhere then, and that raises further problems—they will give us their backing to disrupt, if necessary—these are strong words to use—the day-to-day business of the Common Market. That is the action we must take unless there is some appreciation in the EEC of our essential interests.
We must put it as bluntly as that. Perhaps it is the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) who will wind up from the Opposition Front Bench tonight. He is not noted for the modesty of his language. He is noted for saying bluntly what he thinks and for taking action to back up his words. I hope that he will say, in his normal robust and straightforward manner, that he will support us if we tackle the Common Market head-on in order to get some movement on the CFP.
What is the position on the haddock quota, which, I understand, is about to run out? We shall have taken our quota of haddock in the next couple of weeks. If there is no movement on Monday, what


happens? Do we carry on fishing haddock?
What is the precise position in relation to the herring ban? I believe that it is suggested that this should be enforced off the West Coast as well as in the North Sea. Shall we go ahead with that, or will there be a compromise proposal?
I wish to express on behalf of my constituents—I believe that their view is shared by constituents in fishing ports all over the country—our support and appreciation for what my right hon. Friend the Minister has done. He will have our full backing and will continue to get it if he persists in his firm line. Will he take a firmer line than ever and encourage the official Oppostion as well as all other hon. Members on the Opposition Benches to support him through thick and thin if he has to get tough and showing his iron will as opposed to the velvet glove that he has shown up to now?

5.3 p.m.

Mr. Hamish Watt: There is such a degree of unanimity on this question that it is difficult to avoid repetition. However, may we be assured by the Minister that this debate will in no way preclude the full-scale debate—perhaps spreading over two days—that we must have to discuss the Government's answer to the Fifth Report of the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee? That report and the inquiry took about 16 months to complete. The report contains a great deal of technical detail, of which I hope that the Government will take full cognisance.
I shall confine my remarks to the present totally unsatisfactory situation in the fishing industry. Only British fishermen are prepared to observe conservation measures while our EEC partners are still fishing all-out and indiscriminately. Our fishermen strictly observe the haddock quota. On the whole they abide by the mesh net regulations, although I do not suggest that they are all angels in that respect. However, the Danish, French, German and Dutch boats are still pursuing a policy of all-out fishing, many of them with small-mesh nets. It is particularly galling to read of French trawlers landing in Hull large catches that have been taken from British waters with small-mesh nets.
Will the Minister give an assurance that he will extend the conservation

measures that have to be taken? Other hon. Members have said that we need rules on mesh net sizes, but it is important to go further than that and to take total control of all fishing effort in our waters. Other nations have extended their fishing limits to 200 miles—I think particularly of Norway, Canada and the United States —and they have taken total control of the fishing effort in their waters. They and they alone say which boats should fish and how much fish they may take. They determine the mesh sizes which should be used. It is vital for the Government quickly to impose just such a regime on all who fish in our waters. Of course, it is only our Common Market partners who do that now.
I was particularly annoyed to read in Financial Times this morning the statement by Mr. Gundelach in Europe warning the Minister against seeking bilateral fishing agreements. That is a cheek if ever anything was. It is vital that Britain retains the right to negotiate bilateral agreements. Other hon. Members have referred to the fact that other countries have reached bilateral agreements, particularly Denmark and Sweden. There are many other such negotiations. However, it is tremendously urgent that we should reach a bilateral agreement with the Faroes.
Many fishing nations are becoming increasingly dependent upon the stocks of blue whiting. Those stocks are migratory. They spend part of the year off the Spanish coast and then quite a lot of time off the British coast before moving into Faroese waters and then finally on to Icelandic or Norwegian waters. This fish is in great demand in Japan, a country with which it is vital for us to achieve a trade balance.
Our boats must be able to pursue that stock and exploit it so as to sell as much blue whiting as possible to Japan in the form of fillets and fish mince. In order to exploit it, our boats must be able to follow the blue whiting for a much longer time. They must therefore have access to it in Faroese and Norwegian waters. It is therefore particularly galling to find that this spring the EEC failed completely to negotiate any access to those waters for our boats. The Minister must take unilateral action to get this sort of agreement and then tell bully boy Gundelach that he has done so.
I shall not go into detail about the problems facing the herring and haddock fishermen, but I urge the Minister to square up to Gundelach and to tell him that Britain intends to take just such action. Every fisherman agrees that the operation of the pout box has been a great success in helping to ensure that at least some of the haddock, whiting and cod are allowed to mature, spawn and continue the cycle.
However, I urge the Minister to come to the House very quickly and tell us that he is taking measures to extend the pout box. It is vital that we extend it to 2° West, if not perhaps even to 4° West. In that way, the Minister will double the effectiveness of the pout box arrangements. But if the Minister were also to extend it a further 2° North, he would quadruple the tremendous effect of the pout box. This would mean that our fishermen could be almost certain that from now on there will be mature fish to be caught in that area and that the cycle of spawning and growing is allowed to continue.
I turn, finally and briefly, to another part of Mr. Gundelach's statement, in which he appears to have accepted that there will be no solution to the fishing problem until after our General Election. Frankly, this worries me. I should like a categoric assurance today from both Front Benches that neither of the major parties will settle for anything less than a 50-mile exclusive zone.
I for one do not think that Mr. Gundelach believes for one moment that the Conservative Opposition will win the next General Election, but what he is really banking on is that Stonewall Silkin will be moved to another job and that he will get someone weaker with whom to negotiate.
This afternoon I should like the Government and the Opposition to let the fishermen know that they will stand firm on the demand for a 50-mile limit, on stricter control of the pout box arrangement, on stricter enforcement of mesh sizes and, indeed, on stricter control of the total fishing effort within our total 200 miles.
It is one thing, and a wonderful thing, to see the tremendous unanimity in the House this afternoon, but it is a very

worrying thing to hear the utterances of the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) in the European Parliament, who is saying a different thing altogether. I ask the Opposition whether it is not about time that they curbed the tongue of the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Mr. Corrie), because he is not saying what the Opposition are saying this afternoon.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Watt: No, I shall not give way now. The hon. Member will get an opportunity very soon to answer my point.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will the hon. Member acknowledge that my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Mr. Corrie), who is not present in the Chamber today to answer for himself, acts as rapporteur for the fisheries group in the European Parliament? Therefore, as such he speaks for the group in the European Parliament. My hon. Friend has said this on many occasions. Will not the hon. Member realise that and acknowledge it?

Mr. Watt: I am sure that the hon. Member will get the opportunity to stand up for the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I have no doubt that the hon. Member will get that opportunity later.
It is vital that the entire House of Commons speaks with one voice on this matter. The fishermen of Scotland are fully aware that the SNP has been the only party that has been consistent in its stand for the industry. I would add that in the European Parliament the SNP is the only party that has been totally consistent in its stand for the industry.
I shall now answer the hon. Member for Aberdeen. North (Mr. Hughes). I can assure him that the fishermen of England, and of Wales also, know that my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) has been the only Member of the European Parliament who has been totally consistent about our demand for a 50-mile limit. I bow to no one as regards that statement.
The Tories signed the Treaty of Accession and the Labour Government ratified


it. But the basic Treaty of Rome clearly recognises that the Community must accept change. Change there must be. I believe that it must also take account of the vital national interests of its members.
1 should like today to be reassured that both sides of the House are now prepared to take a firm stand in protecting the long-term interests of the entire British industry.

5.14 p.m.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: It is now one year since I took part in my first fishing debate in the House. That means that I intervene in this debate with a sense of déjà vu, because it is amazing how little has changed in the process of negotiations in the course of that year.
In fact, all that has changed has been our negotiating position, in the sense that our demand for an exclusive belt of up to 50 miles has been left on the table and we have added to it a demand for a dominant preference in the 50 miles around the coast. It is a dominant preference which may be acceptable provided that we control who goes in and who comes out through the licensing of vessels, provided that we retain our national conservation measures, and provided that we take a proper share from the increase in stocks due to proper conservation. But I should add in passing that it is a dominant preference that the British Fishing Federation has not accepted. It has reaffirmed its support for a 50-mile exclusive zone.
We have, therefore, shown a willingness to compromise in these negotiations. It is not true, as the Opposition are so often pointing out, that a spectre is haunting Europe—the spectre of Silkinism. My right hon. Friend has shown his desire to compromise in these negotiations, and that compromise has got us nowhere so far.
1 question how seriously our desire to compromise has been taken in the Common Market, when rumours have been put out by the Commission that our negotiating position is a piece of political window dressing for the General Election. It is not, of course; it is the united demand of the whole fishing industry and of the fishing Members here today. It is a sine qua non. That much is common ground.
I want to deal briefly with three other aspects of the problem today. I want to start with how we got into the present situation in the first place. Much as the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) may want to avoid this question, it is a central question. It is an instructive example of how a vital national interest can be ignored in this kind of negotiation.
In part, I blame the industry, particularly the big owners, for supporting entry to the Common Market, but most of all I blame the Heath Administration. In its headlong rush to get into the Common Market it threw away many of our vital national interests in these negotiations. It put us where we are now—in the desperate negotiating position of trying to get back that which was wilfully thrown away in the entry negotiations right at the start of this whole adventure.
Indeed, the Heath Administration did not abdicate our rights: it rushed to throw them away. I quote from a speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) on 13th December 1971, when he was Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—the Tory Party's Mr. Sell-out. He said then:
We have also sought and obtained a formal assurance from the Community that the legal application of the common fisheries policy would not permit, either in form or in fact, any discrimination by a member State in waters beyond 12 miles over which it might exercise fishing jurisdiction against the fishing vessels of other member States operating in such waters."—[Official Report. 13th December 1971; Vol. 828, c. 52.]
Some of us thought that it might be in our interests to have national conservation measures. Some of us might have thought that it would be in our interests, when the territorial limits were extended, as surely they were going to be extended, to have the power to exclude other vessels and to control access for those. Some of us might have thought that. The industry certainly thought that. But not the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He rushed to seek assurances that we would not have that control and that power in the areas beyond the 12 miles.
I do not want to rub salt into old wounds. I recognise at once that the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), even after the way in which he threw away the interests of this country, has some supporters still—most of them very still. But it is vital that we recognise


where the blame for this situation lies and what was done to put us in the situation that we are now in.
When Opposition Members are bleating—perhaps that it is the wrong word for a fishing debate—or carping about the delay in getting a fishing settlement, they should remember exactly why that delay is occurring. It is because we are now trying to negotiate back what was thrown away in the entry negotiations.

Mr. A. P. Costain: Has the hon. Member complied with the normal courtesies of the House and advised my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) that he would be making this unwarranted attack, or is the hon. Member just doing it behind my right hon. and learned Friend's back when the hon. Member knows that he cannot defend himself?

Mr. Mitchell: I think that the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham might well have been present today, as it is part of the ground that he threw away that is being discussed. I made just a straight quotation from Hansard in 1971.

Mr. Wall: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants to be fair. He has put his view of what happened during the negotiations for our entry into the Common Market. Will he now tell us what happened when his Prime Minister had, I think, six specific points that he said had to be renegotiated before he would agree to a referendum about our membership, and why the matter of fisheries was not included in those six points? He was urged time and time again to include it.

Mr. Mitchell: The renegotiation is in danger of becoming the Tory Party's fig leaf on this issue. Renegotiation is a different matter from the initial negotiations and what was thrown away in them.
In any case, the crucial question came only with the extension from 12 miles to 200 miles in our territorial limits. This is a crucial issue that we are trying to resolve in the negotiation which is still going on, because of what was then thrown away.
This brings me to my second area of comment. I am delighted that in our meetings of Fishery Ministers with fishing

industry representatives those representatives have stated categorically that they are prepared to wait for a settlement. They recognise, as we all must, that a later settlement would be better for this country. The more we stick out, the firmer we show our position to be, the better the settlement we shall get. The industry is certainly prepared to wait, and I advise my right hon. Friend to ignore the voices of those in the industry who have privately been urging that there should be an early settlement, on the ground that they need to know where they stand, and to stick out for the best possible settlement.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Will the hon. Gentleman at least recognise that some parts of the fishing industry simply will not exist if that line is followed? I represent fishermen and an industry that will not exist much longer if conservation measures are not introduced as a matter of urgency. What the hon. Gentleman proposes is not an acceptable line when the jobs of so many people are at stake.

Mr. Mitchell: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to advocate an early settlement, which would abdicate more of our rights than his party has already abdicated. It is in the overall interests of the industry that we should obtain the best possible settlement, and to obtain that we shall have to take a firm line in a difficult fight. If the hon. Gentleman advocates an early settlement, he should say so, but that does not seem to be what his party is advocating. I am saying that an early settlement would be worse than a later one.
I am sure that many of our colleagues who are Members of the European Assembly would be better employed defending Britain's position in the Common Market than coming here and giving us soft versions of what the Common Market wants, compromising, equivocating and justifying European positions, which all too many of them have been doing. A proper course must be to assert our rights, our authority, by imposing desperately needed national conservation measures, doing so unilaterally, as we have the right to do, if the Commission is not prepared to accept them.
I can only repeat many of the listed items—a ban on carrying two types of net, an increase in net sizes, an expansion of


the Norway pout box, and a closer control of by-catches, all of which are vital national conservation measures.
In our assertion of national self-interest, we must also begin unilateral negotiations with Norway and the Faroes about reciprocal catch arrangements with them to get round the pathetically inadequate catch that we have been granted by the Commission as a means of bringing pressure on us to agree an internal common fisheries settlement.
I know that these are strong counsels, but the situation is becoming desperate. The accumulating competition around our shores is producing a situation in which catches are increasingly of undersized fish. The industry is catching its own future because of the overwhelming competition from the Common Market. The situation is also becoming desperate because the reductions in our catches in Norwegian and Faroese waters bring pressures on us.
I have described measures that we must take, measures that will bring us into collision with the Common Market. I must repeat the question to the Opposition. Will they support the kind of intransigence that alone will secure for us the best possible settlement—the kind of intransigence that will up the negotiating ante and strengthen our negotiating position? In my view, we have no alternative to acting unilaterally.
In the meantime, the industry suffers. To compensate it for the long delay in settlement that it now faces, we need help from our national Government to see the industry through until a settlement is reached. That settlement must include a measure of compensation and aid to the industry, which have been withheld as a means of bringing negotiating pressure to bear on the Government. There is an urgent case for national Government help to fill the gap until a common settlement is agreed.
The industry needs help with the burden of landing charges. A framework of charges was agreed in ports such as Grimsby and Hull, when the industry was bigger, richer and much more able to bear that burden of charges. Now a contracted, attenuated industry can no longer bear the same burden.
The industry also needs help for reinvestment. This is the time when it

should be reinvesting and re-equipping to face the competition that lies ahead in the Common Market pool. There is a need to replace the old, clapped-out, tax-written-off vessels which are still too large a part of our fleet. That must be done now to keep going the ancillary industries, which employ many people in all the ancillary trades around fishing. They are being run down by firms such as British United Trawlers, which need the boost that further investment will bring.
Finally, the industry needs compensation for the fishermen who have been thrown out of work, and are still being thrown out of work, by its contraction. They are men with no job security, no contract, no redundancy pay—men who are just thrown out at the owner's whim on to the streets. There was talk of a compensation scheme of about £300,000 at the time of the Icelandic settlement. That £300,000 seems to have evaporated —heaven knows where. There is a desperate need for a compensation scheme for those who have been thrown out of work and those who are still being thrown out of work.
We must also ask for Government help in education and training, specifically in the setting up of the proposed Humberside fishing study centre, which I hope will be established jointly in Hull and Grimsby.
I hope that my right hon. Friend can persuade his ministerial colleagues that the time has come for the national assertiveness that alone will cut the Gordian knot of negotiation. The industry has suffered too many body blows, too much contraction, to take any more.
We have in fishing a real demand to be a special case in Europe. If that demand is not conceded, we must take unilateral action in the interests of the industry and the country.

r>5.27 p.m.

Mr. Michael Brotherton: I shall not adopt the somewhat acrimonious note introduced into the debate by my parliamentary neighbour, the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell).
In my constituency, as well as having many hundreds of people engaged in the fishing industry on land and at sea, we have many thousands of acres of potatoes. I am delighted that the Commission has


decided not to intervene in the question of the addition of non-brewed condiments to vinegar. I hope that this shaft of common sense that we have seen in the past few days augurs well for the Minister's negotiations in Brussels next week.
Much of what has been said in the debate has been said in the House over and over again in the past 12 months. The Treaty of Rome makes the point that the Common Market is an economic community, a common market and not a market of resources. The basic Treaty of Rome clearly spells out that the Community will not own the natural assets of any of the member States.
There is no way of saying that Dutch gas, German coal, French uranium and vineyards, or any of the other natural resources of the Community, are to be shared among the member States. Why should an exception be made in the case of fish? I submit that it is because this country owns far more fish than any other member States do, and the Community wants to make this exception for its good and to our detriment.
What does the fishing industry require? I recently had talks with representatives of the industry who live in my constituency and discovered that there were basically four main points they wished to make. The first is the one that I think every hon. Member is agreed on—the 50-mile limit. I think that there is no doubt that we are all agreed, and equally no doubt that 50 miles is the minimum limit for this country to have complete control over our own resources.
Secondly, there is the question of conservation. I think that all the points have been made in the debate already—mesh size, the need for a quota and the need for that quota being an effort quota and not a catch quota, and the fact that many of the other member States are obviously, quite rightly, from their point of view, not particularly interested in the conservation of stocks around this country. Having fished out their own resources, why should they not be happy to come and loot ours, fishing out the resources around our coast?
The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) spoke of the need for a bilateral agreement with the Faroes. I endorse that. Middle-water trawlers sailing out of

Grimsby use the Faroese waters. It is therefore important that we should make this bilateral agreement. The Germans, the Belgians and other member States of the Community have made bilateral agreements with nations outside the Community. Why should we not do the same?
The hon. Member for Banff also referred to the blue whiting. Two months ago in this House I questioned the Minister about assistance to the industry in connection with this fish. I make the point again that Government should make some investment in the fishing industry to help in handling the blue whiting. There are millions of tons of this fish in the ocean, but it is not an easy fish to process. One of the major fish processing firms—Findus—has already spent a large sum of money on research into ways of dealing with it. Looking into the future and the changing pattern of the fishing industry, I believe that the Government would be well advised to invest some money and assist the industry with the development of the blue whiting.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Despite the fact that there are considerable resources of blue whiting, if my hon. Friend adds together what all the various countries now plan to do to the stock of blue whiting he must acknowledge that it will be the next candidate to follow the herring.

Mr. Brotherton: I take my hon. Friend's point. Perhaps part of the Government help could deal not only with the use of the fish but with its conservation.
If next week's negotiations in Brussels are unsuccessful and we have to go it alone and impose our own limits, obviously we shall require some form of policing. What talks has the Minister had with the Ministry of Defence about the future of the fishery protection arm of the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force? When I served in the Royal Navy about 20 years ago, I was in the 5th Minesweeping and Fishery Protection Squadron. This was a specific squadron, whose sole duties, apart from minesweeping for six weeks of the year, were concerned with fishery protection. Our headquarters were ashore at Port Edgar, on the opposite side of the river from Rosyth. If we are to police a 50-mile zone this will involve


tens of thousands of square miles of ocean.
I ask the Minister to let us know this evening what plans he has for the future, or else to ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to bear this matter in mind when the Royal Navy is debated in the House next Monday. Whatever agreement is reached by the Minister in Brussels, I ask that he returns to this House before it is signed and sealed so that we can discuss it. I wish the Minister well next week.

5.33 p.m.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: The point in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) at which I intervened is one on which I should like to generalise. Such is the over-capacity of the world fishing industry now, compared with the resources, that as soon as one fish stock is subjected to restrictions there is an overwhelming, and I use that word literally, descent upon some other fish stock. We have seen this happen particularly in the South-West, with mackerel.
Quite understandably, the deep sea vessels which lost their Icelandic fishing grounds, with the herring slaughtered and the cod diminishing in number, looked for an alternative outlet. They looked for mackerel in the South-West. This was accompanied by a scramble by other countries such as Norway which, guessing that some form of control would be imposed, wished to "establish" historic rights. Historic rights are a highly arguable contention. The word "historic" is imprecise as to when the clock of history starts. I entirely agree with the proposition that historic rights have to be phased out entirely.
In that context let it not be imagined by Spain or Portugal that entering the European Economic Community gives them the right to ravage their neighbours' waters. The Norwegians have been quite explicit about the lack of discipline of the Spanish fishing fleets. When the Norwegians did snap inspections on Spanish fishing vessels which were licensed to fish within Norwegian waters they found that these vessels had declared only a microscopic proportion of what they had caught. For that reason the Spanish fleet has been excluded from Norwegian waters. The Norwegians were

good enough to pass on that warning to the Select Committee of this House which was investigating such matters.
Turning to methods of conservation and limitation, I am entirely convinced that we have to limit both effort and the totality of the catch. The calculations on which such conservation measures are based can depend only on accurate knowledge of the rate of attrition. Unless fish have to be landed when caught there is no accurate knowledge of the rate of attrition. That is why it is absolutely necessary—particularly for fish on quota —that all fish caught should be landed. If this is not done, a quota can result in more fish being caught rather than fewer, in that when a netful of fish is found to contain fish of less than prime market size it is discarded so that the quota attracts the highest market price.
Once it is made a condition of the licence—the licence of the skipper as well as the vessel, because both should be in peril for infringement—that fish once netted have to be brought ashore, that counts against the quota of the vessel concerned and also occupies valuable space in that vessel which would otherwise be occupied by fish of prime size. That imposes an economic penalty on catching undersized fish. I hope that this view will be shared by all sides of the House and not confined to those hon. Members who examined this issue in considerable depth in the Select Committee which reported recently.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Does my hon. Friend accept that this policy also argues in favour of considering increases in the minimum size of fish landed as well as of considering mesh size, since that is a way of effectively achieving the end which my hon. Friend seeks?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am afraid that the two do not quite sleep in the same bed. Once we lay down that all fish caught must be landed, we cannot synchronously say that fish below a certain size must not be landed if they have been caught. We can impose heavy penalties for catching fish below the minimum size. To have an interdiction on dumping at sea makes enforcement of minimum size easier rather than more difficult. When they are dumped dead


into the sea, the evidence of catching undersized fish is gone.
It has taken a long time to obtain recognition in this country of the fact that catching fish is killing fish. There was considerable disinclination to accept such a view among some of those who have in the past advised Ministers, of whatever political complexion. It is now established, certainly in the case of mackerel, that we must assume that all fish when netted die within 24 hours, even if they are not dead when they go into the sea. We must have conservation measures, by effort, by licensing, by totality of catch and by enforcement of landing.
After all, if the fish have been killed, it is much better that they should provide additional employment in this country—by way of fishmeal production, for instance—than that they should merely be dumped in the sea. But above all, it is necessary that we should have accurate records of what is happening, and that leads me to complete agreement with the unanimous view of colleagues in all parts of the House that it is only the littoral State, the coastal State, which has both the will and, hopefully, the means to police its own waters.
British records have a high international reputation for their integrity, for their comprehensive nature, and for the small grid reference used for collecting them. In other words, the knowledge is more detailed than that in the possession of most other countries.
We accept that enforcement is expensive. It requires specialist means rather than using equipment which is no longer suitable for another purpose. It requires highly specialised training in the fishery protection officers concerned—far in excess of the usual naval skills. That means that a considerable amount of effort needs to be put into training experienced crews if there is not to be a fall-off in quality of fishery protection as crews are rotated between different branches of the Royal Navy.
Enforcement can also be carried out very efficiently in a supportive role by air. Air surveillance cannot enforce mesh size. What it can enforce is the interdiction on vessels of a nationality which are fishing where they should not be fishing. In this respect the American coast-

guard service has for some time been using aerial photographic equipment which prints on to the photograph the location and the time and date at which the photograph was taken. This makes it a very convincing piece of evidence now that the accuracy of aerial photography is such that it can show without question in many cases that a vessel is fishing. The only other thing on which the court needs to be satisfied is that the vessel was at the place at which the officer from the aircraft who is giving evidence says that it was at the time in question, in order to establish that that vessel is committing an offence.
This is immensely important, because it is not unknown in this wicked world for one vessel of a fishing fleet which intends to poach, deliberately to get itself arrested. The enforcement vessel is likely then to be away for up to three days in escorting the offending vessel into port, giving evidence in court against it, and then getting back to its previous patrol position. During this time the rest of the fleet can fish with impunity.
Air surveillance can be quite remarkably effective, very often without the offenders being aware that they are being surveyed by radar until the aircraft descends through the clouds and photographs them.
I mentioned the potential attrition of the blue whiting stock. If we add together what Iceland is planning to do in terms of exports to America, what Norway is planning to do, what Denmark is planning to do for its fishmeal industry, and what some firms in Britain are planning to do, we arrive at a figure which is far more than the total allowable catch which can currently be predicted for the totality of the blue whiting stock. It is as well that this should be recognised in advance.
It is also as well that, British sovereignty over Rockall having been established, this should be maintained, because Rockall is of critical locational significance in the movement of the blue whiting shoals which to date have been detected, in the preservation of their habitat, and in the allocation to the United Kingdom of our rightful share of the product of that fish.
There are grounds for criticism of our deep water fleet, in that it has not


attempted to mitigate its misfortune in being excluded from Icelandic waters to the degree that it could have done by being more enterprising elsewhere—for instance, in relation to the enormous untapped resources of hake which are believed to be between the Falkland Islands and the Argentine. A large part of these resources lies within British territorial waters because of our possession of the Falkland Islands. These are reserves of fish open to Britain which we are not yet tapping.

Mr. Wall: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's remarks about the Falkland Islands. Is he aware that the Foreign Office is discouraging British fishing in the area because it might annoy Argentine?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Clearly, this is the reverse of what national policy ought to be, but there is not always complete harmony between all the different organs of Government. I do not think that that is the first time that the observation has been made in this House, nor it is the first time that it has been true.
I am delighted that the Minister of Agriculture is clearly intending to sit through the debate, and I thank him for that courtesy. He is a robust man and he will make sure that the Foreign Office does not take liberties of that kind. Whether the lack of enthusiasm is temporary, in the hope that success in waters such as those might to some extent weaken a claim for compensation due to exclusion from Icelandic waters on the part of our deep water fleet, I do not know, but the sooner we establish our claim to those fish in South Atlantic waters by actually catching them—and there is no better claim than that—the better.
However, this means that we must have the naval forces available to defend those claims. History shows that those who are not prepared to defend what they possess eventually lose what they possess.
My hon. Friend the Member for Louth stressed quite rightly that the Treaty of Rome does not bring about a commonalty of resources but a commonalty of market. I go so far as to predict that if we allow that treaty to be perverted into a commonalty of resources on fish, one

day someone will claim that what is logical for fish is logical for oil as well, and I do not believe that that would be a very acceptable proposition.
The House of Commons will be solidly behind the Minister when he goes into negotiations on Monday, and rightly so. That is a strong position for any Minister to be in. If the European Assembly —which currently but inaccurately describes itself as a European Parliament—presumes to believe that at some future date it can in some way take decisions, concerning the unique resources of the United Kingdom, which properly belong to this Parliament, it is clear from the feeling of this Parliament that it is this Parliament which will raise the final interdiction to any such pretensions. It will certainly do so with my blessing, although I have always believed, and still believe, that on balance membership of the EEC has greater advantages for this country than disadvantages.
I make no apology for introducing a parochial note. I have fishermen in my constituency, and to a large extent they are dependent on mackerel. All round our coasts—this does not apply only to Devon or Cornwall—we have localities in which there is a concentration of fishing activity which may not look very large overall numerically in the United Kingdom as a whole, but if that is lost there is no available alternative employment.
In Paragraph 49 of its recent report on the fishing industry the Expenditure Committee said:
The special position of local communities of fishermen in Devon and Cornwall, heavily dependent upon returns from mackerel fishing in recent years, should be fully safeguarded".
I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind in licensing arrangements. What is true of Devon and Cornwall is just as evidently true of, for instance, Mallaig where there is clearly no alternative source of employment, and of many other coastal fishing areas throughout the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland.
I end by reiterating once again that the Minister, when he speaks in the negotiations on Monday, will speak with this great strength of the support of the House of Commons behind him. If he


finds it necessary to enter bilateral negotiations with Norway, he will do so in the knowledge that he is only doing for this country what Mr. Gundelach's own country—Denmark—has been permitted to do with Sweden and which other countries have been permitted to do. This is neither a novelty nor an indecency. The Norwegians certainly do not intend to enter into bilateral negotiations with each and every member of the EEC. They have made this clear. They have also made it clear that they have such a commonalty of interest with the United Kingdom that there is fruitful ground for bilateral negotiation between the two. That is the position which the Minister is in, and he certainly has my best wishes when he enters those negotiations.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Silkin): I did not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman in the flow of what I thought was an interesting and detailed speech. I am not saying that the speeches of other hon. Members were not also detailed and interesting, but the hon. Gentleman's speech contained a lot to which I wanted to listen. That is why I did not intervene when he talked about South Atlantic fishing.
The information I have is that there is a great deal of uncertainty about this. We are undertaking a fundamental research on it, but it is not actually a cut and dried matter—not even cut and dried hake. We shall look at this constructively. I thought it best to get that particular fact out of the way.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am most grateful to the Minister, because clearly quite a lot of money will have to be spent on research before the economic rewards overtake the cash flow out. It is quite likely that this money will have to come from one Government agency or another because of the very uncertainties to which the right hon. Gentleman has drawn attention with regard to the considerable capital expense. For instance, it might require a completely new class of fishing vessel plus accommodation facilities at Port Stanley, which do not exist at the moment. It might well require, indeed I think it would, an extension to the airport facilities there—such as was recommended by the Shackleton

Report—so that crews could be flown to and from the United Kingdom. Considerations of that kind extend beyond the immediate sphere of fishing. I am extremely glad that this is a matter to which the right hon. Gentleman is clearly giving some consideration.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay: I admire the deep knowledge of this subject shown by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). I agreed with almost all, but not quite all, of what he said, in particular with what he said about the Falkland Islands and the importance of fishing waters in that part of the world.
I welcome the unanimity shown in the House today, and in particular the conversion of the right hon. Member for Peyton to common sense and a sense of reality in this matter after six years of this controversy.

Mr. Peyton: I would be obliged to the right hon. Gentleman if he would learn to distinguish between my name and my constituency. He got them confused. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have been converted to nothing, and certainly would never be converted by him.

Mr. Jay: I was trying to pay the right hon. Gentleman a compliment, but if he does not wish to have one, then, of course, I shall not repeat it.
In view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said about the events of 1971 and 1972, I should like to ask a few brief questions of the Minister in order to put the record straight and to make a little more clear to the public how we got into the situation in which we find ourselves today. Is it not true that the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) and the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), were misleading the House when they told us in January 1972 that the agreement they had reached put a veto in the hands of the United Kingdom which would prevent the extension of the derogation agreed in 1982? Is it not really the fact, as those of us who were then in opposition argued, that the veto is in the hands of other Members of the EEC to prevent the derogation continuing beyond the date of 1982? If that is so, the whole negotiating position is very much weakened.
Secondly, is it not the case—no one has mentioned this today—that so far from the then Prime Minister and the right hon. and learned Member for Hex-ham fighting for our rights on this matter, in particular for the preservation of the veto, the then Prime Minister wrote a letter to the Prime Minister of Norway—a letter that he intended to be secret—urging the Prime Minister of Norway to give way on this vital point as we ourselves gave way in the negotiations in December 1972 and January 1973? It is worth remembering that the Norwegian Government refused to give way and maintained the right of veto which we surrendered at that time. The difference between the Norwegian position and the British position is all too obvious to everyone at the present time.
Thirdly, is it not true that the derogation, of which those two right hon. Gentlemen boasted so much at the time, which is contained in Article 100 of the Treaty of Accession, merely gives this country up to 1982 an exclusive zone up to six miles with an extension to 12 miles in certain specified areas off the coast? Therefore, all that we obtained in the negotiation was a concession up to 1982, which we had not the power to continue unless we could persuade every other member of the EEC, and that concession was exclusive up to only six miles and partial up to 12 miles.
If the answer to those questions is "Yes", is it not pretty clear that essential British rights were disastrously surrendered in those negotiations and that that is one reason why we were in such a weak negotiating position at the time of the renegotiation? I regret that our interests were not pushed further then, because we were clearly in a weak position. That is one explanation of the position in which my right hon. Friend finds himself today.
I conclude by reminding my right hon. Friend that Sir Winston Churchill once said in this House that the purpose of recrimination about the past is to avoid similar mistakes in the future.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Aleck Buchanan-Smith: The speech of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) was one that we have heard before in this House and, together with the speech of the hon. Member for

Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), contrasted somewhat unfavourably with the much more constructive approach taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). After all, the purpose of this debate has been demonstrated in speeches from both sides of the House; it is to arm the Minister, in his negotiations next week when he goes to Brussels, with the full strength of this House behind him so that he may achieve the best solution for the British fishing industry. Therefore, it is important in certain circumstances to discuss what lies behind the present position. But the real purpose of this debate, to strengthen the Minister's arm, must not be forgotten.
I make only one comment about the speech of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North. He is very selective in what he says. He ought to remember that the derogation that was negotiated was not only a derogation in relation to time, distances, limits, and so on; it was also a derogation that was conditional on a review of the common fisheries policy, and written into and explicit in it was a review of conservation and a review of those communities in the Common Market which are especially dependent on fishing.
I was involved in those negotiations. If there are faults, and responsibility has to be taken for them, I am prepared to take it. However, our purposes will not be served by going over the faults and the reasons for them at that time. If there were faults in 1970–71, equally there were faults in the renegotiation. There were also reasons for the different attitudes taken on those two occasions. But it is what happens in the negotiations in the weeks ahead that really matters.
We are in a position of transition with the common fisheries policy and it is in this respect that responsibility lies so heavily on the Minister's shoulders because we are negotiating the long-term regime of fishing in the Community and not one which lasts for a limited period of time.
That is why I welcomed the firm and strong constructive support which my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil gave the Minister today. It will not only let our partners in the Common Market know where the British Parliament stands in these negotiations; it will be of


immense reassurance to our fishing industry that all parties in the House of Commons stand together behind the Minister in the task that lies before him.
I want first to emphasise the point with which my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil started. We have to remind ourselves that we are dealing with a resource. I was glad to see the Minister nodding in agreement when my right hon. Friend mentioned this. In the Treaty of Rome, there is no provision for the Community owning the national assets of any member State. It is important to remember this, and we must continually remind our Common Market partners of it.
One of the unique features of our entry to the EEC is that the British Government have shown, and, perhaps more significantly, the British fishing industry has been prepared to accept because of the wider benefits of membership of the Community, a willingness to have an element of sharing of these resources. To this extent, we have shown greater generosity, greater responsibility and a greater willingness to fulfil in action what we believe is necessary in order to attain this ideal of European co-operation. We have contributed more than any other member of the EEC and, in what we have already done—not only British Governments of both parties but also the industry—we have shown our readiness to accept that element of sharing. We ask our partners now to show more response in settling the long-term fishing policy and to demonstrate that they recognise the just and correct case that we put forward.
A common market for the produce of our seas, yes, but common ownership of our resources, no. I hope that that message goes out from the House tonight.
I wish to refer to conservation. We are dealing with a resource, but it is quite different from any other resource, be it coal, oil, iron ore or uranium, in that it is a renewable resource. But it is renewable only if it is properly husbanded and conserved. It is that which underlines the movement throughout the world for 200-mile limits.
The Financial Times on 14th June quoted Mr. Appleyard, who is the chief of the fishery industry development ser-

vice of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, as saying:
we could be seeing catches of 120 million to 130 million tons by the year 2000, compared with 60 million to 70 million at present".
That represents a doubling, as a result of the extension to 200-mile limits, of the fishing catch throughout the world. But that is pie in the sky unless at the same time we make sure that with these policies extending the limits there will be genuine and effective conservation.
In that connection, what hope have we that under what is proposed by the Common Market our conservation policies will be effective? We have had the experience of the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission which, over a period of years, has attempted at the political level but with scientific advice to agree policies of conservation in advance of the EEC. Although the efforts of that organisation have contributed, no one can say that they have resulted in effective conservation, otherwise we would not be in the situation that we are at present with herring for example.
What has happened is that in every case it has not been the scientists' advice which has been taken. A political solution has been agreed which has always come down to the highest common multiple of catch whereas the objective should always have been the lowest common denominator.
Mr. Ian Wood, who is one of the leaders of the fishing industry in Aberdeen, put it very well in a recent paper which he prepared when he said, in telling words, that under the NEAFC we have had a very
low ratio of science to politics".
In order for conservation to be effective, we need a high ratio of science to politics. Of course, in the negotiations in the EEC so far we wonder whether under the EEC the position will be any different from what it has been under the NEAFC, with politics taking precedence over science.
We are concerned about conservation for two reasons. The first is that we are still seeing a concentration on industrial fishing, whereas it is fishing for human consumption which really matters. Secondly, we are concerned in the negotiations about whether our partners will observe fully the conservation measures which are agreed.
I mention a report in the Trawling Times of May of this year, where reference is made to the Berlin agreement, which was the interim agreement reached by our partners in Europe when our Minister was not present. One feature of that agreement was that no cod would be caught off Greenland. As the Trawling Times points out, in printing a reproduction of fishing returns from German ports, although there was supposed to be no cod caught off Greenland, in April and May about 1,300 tons of cod was being landed by German vessels in German ports.
This is the kind of ammunition that the Minister will use. Our Common Market partners may pay lip service to conservation, but that is not borne out by events. Even if we were to accept common ownership of resources, which the EEC appears to want, I have no confidence that the conservation to which our European partners pay lip service would be affected in any way. This underlines the rightness of our case at present.
In the present situation what the Common Market is proposing to us is unfair in terms of resource sharing, and ineffective in terms of conservation. It is essential that we should have measures of conservation and it is essential that we should mean business in our dealings with our European partners in order that we can ensure proper conservation.
The Minister is reported in The Guardian today as having said that there is little chance of an early end to the negotiations. This increases the importance of effective interim measures. If we are to be involved in drawn-out negotiations, the Minister knows that if he stands up for our position he has the support of the whole House of Commons. We are worried that in a long, drawn-out struggle, the British position might he watered down in some way. If it is, Parliament will not stand for it. Our European partners must accept this as a reality. If they do not, not only will they cause problems for Britain, but they will cause problems for the continuity and stability of the Common Market itself.
I hope that the Minister will use the arguments that we have put forward in debate, and that he will seek the endorse-

ment of the House of Commons before ratifying any agreement. A report in The Guardian quotes the Minister as saying:
Now is not the time to give way".
Surely, as our case is so strong and well founded, never is the time to give way. A reasonable solution, yes. Giving way, no. I hope that the Minister will confirm that this is the line that he will take in next week's negotiations and any others that follow.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. A. P. Costain: I realise that this is a short debate and that the winding-up speeches should begin in about three minutes. I shall keep my remarks very short.
Today the House of Commons has been at its very best. The debate reminded me of a session briefing a board member who is going away to some very important negotiations. That is how we should see the Minister's position in the Common Market negotiations.
I shall not say anything other than to give an aide-memoire to the Minister to add to his already impressive list of aides-memoires. I represent the small fishermen of the South Coast. The Minister of State has visited by constituency and seen my fishermen; therefore, he understands their problem. Their problem is made very much worse by the restrictions, and the cost of maintaining their vessels. The Minister has had the opportunity to look at this with a greater degree of understanding.
The other great concern of my fishermen is about beam trawlers being used by Continental fishermen. It is not so much their size but the extraordinary harrowing effect of them. They have heavy beams, with heavy chains on the bottom, which are doing a great deal of damage and ruining the Channel beds. I hope that the Minister will bear this in mind in his negotiations and perhaps consider prohibiting that rather ridiculous method of catching fish.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. Iain Sproat: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson), in his usual courteous and balanced speech on this fishing occasion, pointed out that it was unfortunate that Mr. Gundelach did not


come to the House of Commons when he was in London the other day in order to hear the almost unanimous—in fact, one could say unanimous—views of hon. Members about the justice of the British case, which the Minister will present next week. It is even more unfortunate that Mr. Gundelach was not here this afternoon, because he would have heard beyond any shadow of doubt that the House of Commons is completely united with the Minister, just as the industry is united with both.
This is a short debate but perhaps none the worse for that. The essential propositions from all sides of the House can be put very shortly and succinctly. First, the Opposition and the Government totally support the stand of the Minister. Secondly, the Opposition and the Government will continue to support the Minister as long as he continues to fight for the justice of the British case. Thirdly, if the Minister does not succeed in achieving victory, in spite of his robust persuasiveness, he should take unilateral action. In doing that, he will have the universal support of the House.
As a result of this afternoon's debate, we can say to those in Europe who will read our discussions that there is no doubt not only that the industry outside agrees with us but that the industry has made clear that it would prefer no agreement now to a bad agreement now. Therefore, there is no pressure of time on the Minister. We want the best possible agreement, and if we do not get what we consider a good enough agreement we will not make one at all. If we do not get one, we must take unilateral action and a comprehensive, non-discriminatory regime of conservation measures as soon as possible.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), who opened the debate, gave a constructive list of such measures which would command universal support in the House. Among these, the most important were that the Norway pout box should be expanded, that we should institute a one-net rule and that we should see an overall increase in mesh size. I am sure that the whole House would endorse these and the list of other measures that hon. Members have put forward this afternoon.
In looking forward to the meeting next week, there is one background argument that the Minister must put across to our colleagues in Europe. I have no doubt that he will do his best to do so. There are those in the EEC who believe that the British are being unreasonable, intransigent, unnecessarily argumentative and even unnecessarily greedy. That is not so. Our case does not rest on intransigence or on being greedy. Our case is based on two things—justice, and not simply justice for ourselves but common sense or everybody. It is based on these two essential pillars.
On the question of the justice of the British case, I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) said earlier and what my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) said just now. We must make it quite clear to the Community now that we do not regard and will not regard fish as a Community resource. The Treaty of Rome says quite clearly:
The Community will not own natural assets of member States.
That is quite definite. Fish is not a Community resource but a British resource, which we shall contribute to the Community on terms which we regard as fair. It is those fair terms which we wholeheartedly support and which the right hon Gentleman will seek to obtain next week.
This is worth mentioning because so often we hear phrases rolling out from the mandarins of the EEC about the European pool, European fish resources and all the rest. When the 200-mile extensions were made, they were made not by the EEC but by the individual nations which happened to be part of the EEC. It was not an EEC extension to 200 miles but an extension by the sovereign States which happened to be members of the EEC.
To some people this may seem to be a small semantic difference, but it explodes any claim that the EEC might have in extending the 200-mile limit to the effect that it is the owner of the fish within that limit. It has already been pointed out that no other resource is attempted to be treated in this way. There is no question of German coal, Dutch gas or French or Italian vineyards being


regarded as a Common Community resource. There is no question of common exploitation or common ownership of those commodities.
When this argument is put to Members of the European Assembly, they say "But of course—French vineyards are on French soil, but the fact that the fish are in the sea is a different matter." As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) pointed out, however, fish may be a marine resource, but so also in one sense of the word is oil. I have no doubt that if we give an inch here there will be many who at a later stage will press us to give further inches on oil. Therefore, there must be no question of even accepting the principle of a Community resource.
The fact is that the EEC thinks—if one can impute collective thoughts to that organisation—that fish is a most important subject. But, since that subject does not seem as important as the subject of oil, and because the EEC knew that it could not get away with it on oil, it thought it might be able to get away with it on the subject of fish. We must make it very clear to the EEC that it will not get away with it on the subject of fish.
In recent weeks the following extraordinary argument has been advanced by the European Assembly: "We agree that the limits were made by the individual sovereign States extending the limits, but in any case the limits do not matter because fish do not observe limits but swim in and out of them." That argument has emerged almost from nowhere. We should nail that argument now as one that we cannot possibly accept, and we should point out that when the 200-mile limits came into operation nobody said to any country in the EEC "These extensions to 200 miles are limitless because fish will swim over and under them." Nobody took that view at that time. When the EEC negotiated with Norway and the Faroes, nobody said that their claims to limits were to be totally disregarded because fish ignore limits. The argument about fish swimming about regardless have been produced solely and erroneously to try to undermine the case put forward by the Minister of Agriculture. That fallacy should be nailed right away.
Another argument is that in any event demersal fish do not migrate. I under-

stand that they stay pretty well in the place where they start off. In any case, the clear principle is that the internationally accepted criteria of the ownership of fish relate to where the fish happen to be when they are caught.
There is another argument on the justice of the British case which there is no need to outline in great detail but which should be emphasised since it was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall). Since this country contributes between 60 and 65 per cent. of fish considered to be in the European pool, it is totally and grossly unfair that we should have a return of only 20 to 25 per cent. of the total. The return we obtain from the EEC must be in some degree commensurate with what the United Kingdom puts in.
There is a further point about quotas. Whatever quotas are negotiated by the Minister, we know that there will have to be a far tighter control package. I know that many members of the British fishing industry will hardly bother to discuss the quotas because they regard them as ludicrous since the control is so inadequate. That point also must be emphasised.
I conclude by saying that it is indisputable that, at the start, the Community did not realise—and, I believe, still does not realise—the strength of feeling in this country and the sense of injustice about the way in which these matters have been dealt with. It is not just a matter of a robust Minister, whose ideas on the Common Market may be different from those adopted by some of us, going to the EEC and using those arguments as a stick with which to beat his European partners. That is not the point. Everybody in this House shares the same sense of feeling of injustice at the ludicrously inadequate proposals of the Common Market on this issue.
On the one hand we know that we still have the largest fleet and make the largest contribution in respect of fish catches and that we have a large number of communities that are very much dependent on fish. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said that parts of his constituency would have to be evacuated. In other words, no human being in that area will be able to live if the fishing industry collapses. Even


in the city of Aberdeen there are still more jobs dependent on fish than there are on North Sea oil. Therefore, we must always bear in mind that some communities are totally dependent on the industry.
Although we have that situation on the one hand, we must face on the other hand the painful contraction in the industry which has taken place in the last four or five years. We know that in that period about 45,000 jobs at sea and on land have been lost to the fishing industry. But, at the same time as our industry has been contracting, the French fleet has increased, the Dutch fleet has grown by as much as 30 per cent. and the Danish fleet has grown by 50 per cent. Therefore, we have the total unfairness comprised in the increases in fleet sizes on the one hand and, on the other hand, the complete unfairness of the allocations offered to the British fishing industry.
The Minister will need no further urging to tell the EEC that its present proposals remain totally unacceptable. The Conservative Party remains firmly of the belief that a 50-mile exclusively controlled zone is the most practicable and best available way in which to get what we believe are our just deserts. We want justice for ourselves and a commonsense policy that will benefit everybody—not only ourselves, but every other member of the EEC. I wish the right hon. Gentleman the best of luck in his negotiations.

6.28 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Silkin): I deliberately did not take my place at the Dispatch Box until this late hour because I wanted to do what my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) expected Commissioner Gundelach to do—that is, to listen to the British House of Commons. I think I was wise to do so, and I am glad that I did.
I appreciate the spirit of the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). That is not to say that we do not have our disagreements on this subject or that we shall not have such disagreements on other subjects in the future. I am not saying that I disagree with my right hon. and hon. Friends who spoke somewhat critically of events

some time ago, but I am saying that, at this moment in our history, a united, outspoken House of Commons telling a British Minister what it believes should be done and getting a response from that Minister is the right way to tackle things.
There are various methods by which we can achieve what we all want. We all want, surely, to secure enough fish for our United Kingdom fishing industry for it to remain viable. We have all shown that we agree that we need an effective form of conservation and the enforcement of such conservation, so that we can see that the industry remains viable and that fish stocks are protected.
We have on many occasions discussed the sort of solution that we believe to be right. We have considered whether it should be an exclusive 100-mile belt, an exclusive 50-mile belt, an exclusive belt plus dominant preference or some other solution. These are not matters which ought to divide us. I am not saying this because during the past 12 months I have suggested a dominant zone with an exclusive 12-miles belt in it. I am reserving to myself and the Government the right to go back to any measures that were on the table when we discussed the matter. I did it in order to show that we are not inflexible or intransigent.
To my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) I say that it is possible at times to be both amiable and intransigent. I hope that there are times—no doubt very few—when the right hon. Member for Yeovil and I will be a splendid example of togetherness. I did not believe that we should have fixed minds, provided that we get, first, exclusive access within 12 miles; secondly, priority for access to fish within 12 to 50 miles and what I have described as the sea lion's share of growth within these waters; thirdly, proper conservation; and, fourthly, proper quotas enforced by effort limitation.
I come to the point made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). We had some experience of the question of effort limitation on the wrong end of the stick in the various cod wars, but it work efficiently and taught us all a lesson. One relates to the quota division, the boat hours or the period


of time that boats may sail within certain areas, and one works those out in conjunction. That is what our licence will give us. Without that, the quota figures are meaningless.
I should like to deal with those points. I started with the question of access and growth. The proposals that have for 12 months been before our partners in the EEC—they had just come in when my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) was elected—differ in some respects from a 50-mile exclusive limit. Those who talk about a 50-mile exclusive limit do not literally mean exclusive. Such a limit would mean, I hope, Norwegians fishing in our waters and our people fishing in Norwegian waters. It is not, therefore, exactly exclusive use.
I had hoped that by being reasonable and flexible and saying that we were seeking to reserve for our people substantial fishing opportunities within 50 miles of our shores, combined with suitable fishing opportunities in third country waters—the Norwegian illustration, for example—that would meet the case and show that we were not wedded to a rigid system. It would also preserve priority of access and a preferential share of growth in the fish stocks. There is no point in having conservation merely in order to conserve fish swimming in the sea. They must also at some time find their way into the nets of the fishermen. I believe, as I think the House does, that those who provide the waters should at least be in some preferential position when those nets lift the fish from the sea.
The Government are seeking strong and effective conservation measures, not only in our own waters but throughout the waters of all member States. I agree with those who said that it is clear that the United Kingdom—the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) made this point and, I must say, on certain occasions the Commission has done so—is more enthusiastic about conservation than are some other member States.
The right hon. Member for Yeovil talked about mere words. That is fair enough. He wants action. It is fair to remind the House that there are a number of national measures which are in effect because the Community cannot or will not introduce the measures. First, there

is the pout box off the East Coast of Scotland which extends to the Greenwich meridian. What does such conservation mean? It means that it is estimated to result in an increase of not far off 60,000 tons a year in the available stocks of whiting and haddock. Yet there is one country and one country only which has seen it and consistently pushed it and whose national measures now make it possible.
It is absurd that because that 60,000 tons, or whatever the figure is, of haddock and whiting would not go to this country alone, it would go to all who fished. How anybody can claim that this is the British being selfish or intransigent, I cannot understand. Those measures are designed to help everybody.
The same applies to the North Sea herring ban. Hon. Members know perfectly well that the instituting of a ban, for which we fought, throughout the North Sea was not the most popular thing in the world with our herring industries or our herring processing plants. They knew and we knew that it would hurt them. There was the danger, as scientific evidence showed, of the whole of the herring in the North Sea disappearing within 18 months. The only times when there was sufficient herring for everybody was after the First World War and after the Second World War. That shows how long it takes after a period of quiescence to build up the herring stocks again. The third national measure which is still in existence is the minimum mesh sizes—namely, the landing sizes for fishing and the by-catch regulations. These are all national measures, not Community measures.
As to quotas, we have certain sensible, clear and practical requirements. We have to pay regard to the species composition of the overall allocation of a quota. It is not enough simply to talk about a number. It is not enough simply to get a method of enforcing that quota. We also have to see that it is the right allocation. It is possible to work out a system of giving fish that no one will eat. That is why it must conform to our traditional catching pattern to the greatest possible extent. It must reflect our losses in third country waters. It works like that for us and is supposed to do the same for other countries.
I agree with the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat), who defined exactly the way I would define the contribution to resources made by the limits. The House and people outside should realise that if the United Kingdom moved all her fishery limits, which could be done by Order in Council under the Fishery Limits Act, about 60 per cent. of the fish stocks currently available to the Community would no longer be subject to the common fisheries policy. I am not saying that the limits should be removed, but I am giving an illustration of the effect of such a contribution.
To pretend that in any common fisheries policy we can ignore the contribution to resources is a dangerous ignorance of reality. I am glad that this point has been made in the debate and that I shall have the House with me when I make the point again at the Council of Ministers meeting in Luxembourg.
I have said that quotes must clearly be enforceable and I have referred to effort limitation. A marriage is possible between our views and those that have sprung from the Commission in the form of fishing plans. It is possible to say in a fishing plan that up to, say, 50 miles in a given area there should be dominant preference for the United Kingdom or another State. That is a possible mechanism and, since it originated in the Commission, it is one which the Commission and our partners in the EEC would do ill to ignore. I hope that this is the way in which eventually we may reach a conclusion. I put it on the record that this role exists.
If this is how flexible we have been and how practical our suggestions are, what movement has there been from the Commission and our partners in the EEC? It is only fair to say that, as a result of our pressure, there has been some change in the Commission's original proposals of 1976 which the House decided unanimously were unacceptable. Perhaps it is no great credit that there has been movement, but at least there has been.
Let us see where we are. There has been an advance on conservation, but we still have a very long way to go—at least, until the attitudes of other members begin to match our own. The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns made this point.
If we considered the history of the North Sea herring ban, it is interesting to see how we and others regard conservation. The ban was imposed after lengthy and very acrimonious discussions as an EEC measure on 28th February 1977 only because of the knowledge that the United Kingdom would otherwise have imposed national measures. From 30th June the Council of Ministers refused to continue the ban and it was imposed again nationally until 25th July, when the Council agreed to impose it again. However, that ban expired on 31st October and since 1st November it has been continued only by national measures. If this is not a convincing demonstration of our consistent concern for conservation and the total lack of concern by other members as a bloc, I do not know what is.
The Commission has moved on the question of quotas. It added about 200,000 tonnes on the main species to its initial 1976 allocation of fish for the United Kingdom, but a large proportion of those fish are of the lower value types. The right hon. Member for Yeovil pointed this out with some interesting figures. I wish to give a slightly different edge to what he said, but when people read our remarks they will find that they form a composite whole.
We both agree that we were left as the biggest losers in the Community. We were being asked, even on the improved figures of the Commission, to bear half the total Community loss of demersal fish—that is 200,000 tonnes of the 400,000 tonnes that were to be lost. Yet we were providing 60 per cent. of the whole stock of fish in the waters of member States. I cannot believe that anyone who looks at that proposal objectively can possibly regard it as reasonable. The Commission and our partners have not gone far enough on quotas.
On access and growth, both of which are important, we have had no concrete proposals from the Commission. I hope that we may be able to make this marriage with its fishing plans and our dominant preference, but I am sorry to have to say that there seems at the moment to be little movement towards us.
It will be regrettable and, as the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) said, serious—that is a good word in this connection—if we are unable to reach agreement at the next Council meeting, but I


hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that while it would be regrettable and serious, it would not be the end of the world. We need to see a firm basis for future planning.
My contacts with the industry have convinced me that it would be able to face a period of uncertainty in the months that lie ahead. That is an important distinction between us and some other countries. Not only has the industry convinced me of that, but I pay tribute to it because it is aware of all the difficulties, worries and hardships that it may face, and it has never once, in all the months when I have consulted those in the industry—and I have tried to consult on every possible occasion—taken the view that its understandably selfish interest came first. Despite the differences with the Folkestone inshore fishermen and the Hull and Grimsby deep sea fishermen, those in the industry have been prepared to work together and we can be proud of having such an industry and of the men and women who work in it.
I have been asked what I would suggest that the House should do if there is no agreement. That is a fair question. I agree with every hon. Member who has spoken that we would probably require quite a number of additional conservation measures. The right hon. Member for Yeovil gave me a list of such measures. Much has been done by national measures, but they seem to be seriously lacking in a number of ways. I put these at the head of my list, which will not be exhaustive, but will include the measures that I regard as most important.
First, in relation to the size of the pout box, I believe that it should be extended. Secondly, large quantities of immature white fish, potentially of the highest value, are still going for industrial fishing. Thirdly, prawn fishermen in the South-West and the Irish Sea are taking white fish in the small mesh nets used for prawns. We believe that the mesh size regulations will never be properly enforced while fishermen carry nets of different sizes on the same voyage. This point was made by many hon. Members.
I hope that the Commission and the Council will take the necessary conservation measures. I have to admit that that is not because I do not like a robust national attitude. I hope that that is still not a crime. It is much better that

conservation extends to the waters of us all than to be limited to the waters, however large they might be, of one of the members of the Community. That is why I prefer conservation to be on a Community basis. I should like the Community to be able to reach agreement with other countries so that gradually we could build up world-wide conservation. That seems to be the right approach, but if it is not to be done by the Community that does not mean that it should not be done. It means that we shall have to take the action that is necessary. That means unilateral action.
We cannot take unilateral action merely by itself. There has to be a test of what will stand up if we are not to be disqualified, as the Irish recently were, by the European Court of Justice.
The right hon. Member for Yeovil took the major point when he said that the measures in question had to be nondiscriminatory. That is one basis, but it is not the only one. Unilateral action would have to be in accordance with scientific evidence. That was a point made by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns. I am sorry to keep on quoting the hon. Gentleman; he will begin to become worried that I have quoted him so often. However, he put the position very clearly, although I disagreed with some of his remarks.
Action has to be taken in accordance with the scientific evidence, otherwise it would be a political decision and might even be a decision tortuously contrived at by one country to gain an advantage over another. It is necessary that we have the scientific evidence and that we are able to adduce it.
The third basis is that action has to be taken because it is urgent and necessary. I shall give an example although I do not know of such a case. If we were to say that scientific evidence tells us that in 1987 there will be a total loss of salmon, that would not, according to the European Court, be a reason for introducing a unilateral conservation measure in 1978. We have to bear those tests in mind.
I have given examples of the measures that I believe to be at the head of the list, but I am not disqualifying any of the others that have been suggested by right hon. and hon. Members on both


sides of the House. Let us consider the lot and put them against the tests to which I have referred. Let us say to the Community "Are you willing here and now to go ahead and put these measures into effect?" If the Community is not so willing, I repeat that we must not have a vacuum. That is where the unilateral case features.
I was asked by the right hon. Member for Yeovil about bilateral negotiations. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West asked, as did others, "If others can make bilateral agreements, why cannot the United Kingdom?" Certain examples were given. I do not want to go into great detail, but in a number of instances they were old agreements that somehow continued after the common fisheries policy. The Commission might say that they were in existence before that policy and were not new agreements. The Scandinavian agreement between Sweden, Norway and Denmark has never been recognised by the Commission. It has always refused to accept that Denmark was in order in making it. That is one that has followed the policy. However, whether we refuse to accept it, refuse to consider it or refuse to acknowledge it, the question is, what do we do about it?
I think that the right hon. Member for Yeovil understood—he said that it was a fair answer to the question—when I said that so far we have tried to work within the framework of a Community policy. I still hope to do so. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not totally disqualify me from doing that if we can get the right policy. Therefore, bilateral agreements did not seem to arise until we had reached a certain position of disagreement.
As it happens, I shall be going to Oslo to have some discussions with the Norwegian Minister of the Law of the Sea, Mr. Evensen, in the week following the Fisheries Council. I am sure that we shall both be glad to renew our personal friendship and to further the relations between our two countries, which remain close and friendly.
I have been talking about what we might or might not do in the event of disagreement. There is one other thing that we shall need to do in the event of

disagreement or in the event of agreement. It seems that United Kingdom fleets will have to face some changes. We shall need to consider how our industry should be restructured.
The Commission has produced proposals, some parts of which could form part of a final common fisheries policy package. However, in the event of disagreement I should not agree to those proposals. I should not agree to them because I do not regard acceptance of piecemeal parts of a package as being the right approach. However, that should not stop our planning for the future, which I am happy to tell the House is going ahead. At this moment officials are considering the structural change and the shape of grant and loan arrangements that may be made with the White Fish Authority.
I assure my hon. Friends that those who work in the fishing industry need to be protected, whether they work as fishermen in our ships or as loaders and dockers. I understand the point which has been made about the redundancies that may occur for fishermen who are of an age which I regret to say I have reached and which my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby has not reached.
There is another factor that is with us already and which is growing in intensity—namely, the loss of third country waters, which is already posing considerable problems for the deep water ports of Fleetwood, Grimsby and Hull. I agree that we have to do something about that. I promise that I shall consider what can be done to help, whether there is agreement or whether there is not.
I understand what the House has expressed and I understand its mood, but the best thing would be to get an agreement on the right terms. I must tell the House that I am not hopeful of an early settlement. I have said, and I think that the House has said too—

Mr. Peyton: The right hon. Gentleman has said that he is not hopeful of an early settlement. Regretfully, I am not hopeful of such a settlement either. If he does not get a settlement next week or the immediate prospect of one, I hope that he will return immediately to the House with a set of conservation measures, which again, regretfully, he would be forced to impose. In so doing he would have our support.

Mr. Silkin: I might not be forced to impose them if the Community were to accept them as Community measures. However, the House should be made aware immediately of what measures may be necessary. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is a technical matter, but I shall have my officials working on it.
I hope that we shall get an agreement. I should like one and I think that it would benefit us. I happen to think that it would benefit the rest of Europe if we got an agreement. I have been asked by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland whether in the event of an agreement I should make it ad referendum the House. That would be my intention. I want to be clear that there are occasions—it might have happened as regards price fixing and it could occur in several international negotiations—when the moment is reached when it may be said "I can get an agreement which I believe, as Minister, to be right for the people of the United Kingdom. However, I suspect that if I put a reserve on it I shall lose it." If I come to that decision—I hope that I shall not have to do so—I must take the responsibility upon my own shoulders. That is a Minister's duty. In that event, I must come back to the House and explain what I have done, and the House will agree with me or, as sometimes happens, tear me to pieces. Whatever happens, we are prepared to treat flexibly any sensible, realistic approach that is made to us.
The House has shown that it regards the continuation of a viable United Kingdom fishing industry as its major aim. Therefore, I shall go to Luxembourg on Monday in the knowledge that the House is behind me in demanding a fair deal for British fishermen. I regard that as my paramount duty during these negotiations.

Orders of the Day — OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant God-man Irvine): Before we enter upon this debate, Mr. Speaker desires me to remind the House that what is commonly referred to as the Colonel B case and the original Official Secrets Act prosecution out of which it arose are still sub judice and that no direct references to the merits of those cases may be made.
In the Colonel B case, a petition for leave to appeal to the House of Lords has now been lodged. As regards the original prosecution under the Official Secrets Act, it is understood that the trial is due to take place in September.
Mr. Speaker is aware that not all Members agree with the resolutions of the House on the sub judice matters. But, as he said before, if the House regards the rule as too restrictive, it is open to it to alter it. However, until that is done it is Mr. Speaker's view that it should be enforced.
That having been said, there would be no objection to references being made to the operation of the law in circumstances similar to the case which is sub judice, provided that reference is not made to the particular case or to any legal proceedings which have so far taken place in this matter. That should be sufficient to enable any hon. Member to make any general point that he wishes to make while still preserving the rules by which the House has bound itself.

7.3 p.m.

Sir Michael Havers: The subject that we are to debate for the next three hours was last debated in June 1973. I make it clear at the outset that I am not concerned with Section 1. Clearly, acts of spying must be made subject to heavy penalties. The only comment I would make is that, if the proposals that we are putting forward are accepted, it would be a very good thing to call the Official Secrets Act, after Section 2 is taken out of it, a better name—for example, the Espionage Act.
Section 2 is the section which causes anxiety. The history of how Section 2 came into being bears a little examination. The first Official Secrets Act was in 1889. That dealt with spying and breaches of official trust. Crown servants or Government contractors, if under contracts they were obliged to maintain


secrecy, were forbidden to pass information.
Between 1909 and 1911 there were a number of leaks of Government information to the Press. Therefore, the authorities at that time decided that it was necessary to extend criminal sanctions to the receiver of confidential information, whereas previously they had been directed only at those who gave it. In 1911 the Act was passed, and it made it an offence to communicate or to receive classified information. All kinds of official information were covered by Section 2, however unimportant or trivial, without the need to prove any unlawful intent.
On 18th August 1911 the Bill passed through all its stages, and Clause 2 was not mentioned in the debates. The Attorney-General of the day, Sir Rufus Isaacs, said that there was nothing novel in the principle of the Bill. Second Reading took up three columns of the Official Report, Committee stage one column and Third Reading four columns, during which there was argument whether an amendment should have been accepted on Report. That was the way that the House approached the problem. We have had the misfortune ever since, and particularly since the last war, of having to manage the law as it was created in 1911.
The Press made no comment, although it had commented on previous Bills which the Government had sought to bring forward but had to abandon. That may have been because the Bill went through the House at the time of a constitutional crisis over the Parliament Bill and attention was distracted more by that than by what appeared to be a slight tightening up of the legislation of the previous century. The House was no doubt also worried at that time about the increasing threat from Germany and anxious that the espionage provisions in the new Section 1 should become law as soon as possible. Clearly, there was no real understanding in the House of the enormous scope covered by section 2.
Section 2 has been described as the "catch-all" section. It is extremely well set out in the Franks Report at page 14, paragraph 17:
The main offence which section 2 creates is the unauthorised communication of official information (including documents) by a Crown servant. The leading characteristic of this

offence is its catch-all quality. It catches all official documents and information. It makes no distinctions of kind, and no distinctions of degree. All information which a Crown servant learns in the course of his duty is 'official' for the purposes of section 2, whatever its nature, whatever its importance, whatever its original source. A blanket is thrown over everything; nothing escapes. The section catches all Crown servants as well as all official information. Again, it makes no distinctions according to the nature or importance of a Crown servant's duties. All are covered. Every Minister of the Crown, every civil servant, every member of the Armed Forces, every police officer, performs his duties subject to section 2.
The stock answer to the criticism which is well set out in that paragraph in the report is that no prosecution can take place without the leave of the Attorney-General and that he will prosecute only where important breaches have occurred. That is right, but it still leaves a measure of uncertainty. In our view, any criminal statute should be certain. For example, journalists are entitled to know where they stand. It is not enough to say "All right, technically you will be committing a criminal offence but you are most unlikely to be prosecuted."
The area where secrecy and confidentiality should be protected must clearly be defined and limited to the extent where it is generally acceptable and compatible with open government. A balance must be struck where the public interest is protected in both ways. I mean by that that the public interest requires that matters of defence, international security and Cabinet minutes, to take just a few examples, may need to be safeguarded against public disclosure. But the public interest also requires that there is no misuse of secrecy to cover up errors or bungling or to avoid criticism.
In this short debate I do not want to go into the area of freedom of information. I notice that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis), who is very concerned with that aspect, is present. The phrase "freedom of information" is misleading when compared with, for example, freedom of speech or freedom of choice. Freedom of information means the extent to which the public should have the right of access to official information—that is, the balance of public interest. I understand that Justice will shortly be publishing a report which will make a substantial contribution to this aspect of the subject.
In the meantime, it is worth noting that in the United States and Sweden, for example, attempts to provide effective freedom of information legislation have proved more difficult than was anticipated. The first Freedom of Information Act in the United States became known as the Denial of Freedom Act. The Swedish Act contains 43 sections of exceptions to the freedom of information rules—a huge number of exceptions. We must also remember that both those countries have written constitutions, so that judicial intervention in establishing the rights of the citizen is much greater than in the United Kingdom. Any discussion of freedom of information must be in the context of the establishment of a system of administrative courts.
There is no doubt that the Franks Committee made a valuable contribution to the debate about Section 2. The committee was set up in April 1971, honouring the pledge of the Conservative manifesto for the 1970 General Election. Although there are three volumes of oral and written evidence, the committee managed to produce its report by September of the following year.
In June 1973 the then Home Secretary, now Lord Carr, accepted the report in general, but the Conservative Government did not remain in office long enough to implement it. In March 1974 the present Government took office. In April of that year the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), said of the Franks Report:
I hope to give an answer … in a shorter time than the previous Government".—[Official Report, 2nd April 1974; Vol. 871, c. 1089.]
We are now in June 1978. In spite of those brave words we had to wait until November 1976, when the present Home Secretary made a statement to the House. He accepted the Franks Report with certain reservations about the categories of protected information. He promised legislation as soon as possible.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) asked for a White Paper or a Green Paper. That was agreed by the Home Secretary. It is now 18 months later and we are still waiting. In Opposition time we have, at last, another debate on this important subject. It is important to the Govern-

ment, the Civil Service, all servants of the Crown, the public and the Press. I should have preferred a full day's debate in Government time after the White Paper had been published so that we would have an opportunity of learning the Government's intention. But that possibility looked so remote that we felt that we had to initiate the debate.
We think, as we always have thought, that the Franks Committee was in general right. We accept that Section 2 of the Act is outdated and far too widely drawn. We agree that certain classes of information should be protected, as Franks recommends. This is summarised well in paragraph 276 of the report, which states:

"a. is classified information relating to defence or internal security, or to foreign relations, or to the currency or to the reserves, the unauthorised disclosure of which would cause serious injury to the interests of the nation; or
b. is likely to assist criminal activities or to impede law enforcement; or
c. is a Cabinet document; or
d. has been entrusted to the Government by a private individual or concern."
There is another category in Franks with which we agree—where official information has been used for private gain. That is another form of corruption.
We have one major disagreement with the Franks Committee. It involves the policing and enforcement of its recommendations. Franks recommends that the areas that should be classified should be classified by regulation made by the Secretary of State, this also involves declassification. In paragraph 8 of the recommendations on page 104, it is stated:
Before a decision is taken whether to institute a prosecution for the disclosure of classified information within one of the three categories, there should be a review of the classification of the information which had allegedly been disclosed without authority. This review should be carried out by the responsible Minister himself. He should be required to consider whether at the time of the alleged disclosure that information was properly classified, secret or above or defence—confidential, in the sense that its unauthorised disclosure would cause serious injury to the interests of the nation. If he was not satisfied on this point, then no prosecution would be possible. If he was satisfied, he should give a certificate to that effect to the court. This certificate should be conclusive evidence of the fact that the information was classified within the meaning of the Act.
We agree that the Secretary of State should have the power to make the regulations, but we believe that they should be kept under continuous review by a


Select Committee and that the matter should be subject to the affirmative procedure.
More important, the review as to whether the classification at the time of the disclosure was the proper classification should not rest with the Minister. That would smack too much of the Minister being judge and jury in his own cause. When any prosecution is brought for the disclosure of information, the question of whether the information was correctly classified at the date of disclosure should be considered not by the Minister responsible but by an independent committee.
We suggest that that independent committee should be two Privy Councillors presided over by a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary. The defendant should have the right to make representations to the committee, although not, perhaps, appear before it. That view is supported by Lord Rawlinson, who was Attorney-General at the time when the Franks Committee reported.
It would be feasible for the Minister to provide the information which would enable the independent committee to form a view about whether the classification was correct. It would be similar to the committee of "three wise men" who advise the Home Secretary when he is deciding whether to deport an alien. A safeguard of this kind would satisfy Fleet Street and the general public that the information was or was not properly classified and would avoid allegations of a cover-up by the Department or Minister.
If our proposals are accepted and form the basis for a new Official Information Act in place of Section 2, the criminal law will be used only to protect information the disclosure of which would really be against the public interest. Any potential defendant would have greater safeguards than exist under the present law and under the Franks proposals.
It is not a question of open or closed government. If the balance can be fairly struck and impartially checked, the public interest is protected in every way. Our proposals are a realistic and responsible approach to the problem and could quickly be enshrined in our law. We hope to have the opportunity to do that in the near future.

7.17 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Brynmor John): I understand why the right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) concentrated on Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. That is the section which causes most concern. I welcome the opportunity to discuss it. Although it has not itself formed part of a central debate on the subject, it was mentioned in the debate on the Queen's Speech last autumn. We said that we would bring forward legislative proposals to reform Section 2 during this Session.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman was correct about the history of the passage of the 1911 Act. I believe that the situation arose more because of Agadir than because of the constitutional crisis which was raging in Britain. There can be no question of history repeating itself and the House passing in haste what it repents at leisure.
We should examine the difficult and complex questions involved in this issue. There is room for serious debate and difference of opinion, not on a narrow party basis, but on the basis of what we are trying to achieve and what we expect the criminal law to achieve. No country of which I am aware can manage completely without the classification of information.
Reference has been made to the Government's slow approach. I am used to replying to speeches of that kind. Perhaps my reply is equally standard. There is a well-known maxim that someone who casts the first stone should be without sin. It is remarkable, in view of the great interest and concern which the right hon. and learned Gentleman now evinces on behalf of his party, that a document issued as recently as "The Right Approach" makes no reference to the subject. I merely mention that in order to show that none of us is completely free of the need to consider this matter in detail.
A further point, which is a fair one to make but which I accept could be pushed too far, is that the Attorney-General has to exercise his discretion and to authorise a prosecution. It could be said that by the time the Government have considered this matter the position of individuals could have been prejudiced.


During the period that the Government have been in office there has been only one conviction under Section 2, and that was for an offence which most of us would have thought, on any classification, could not be overlooked. I refer to the Spargo case.

Mr. Percy Grieve: The Government promised legislation on this topic in 1975, yet here we are in 1978, the Government perhaps drawing towards their close, and we still have not had the legislation.

Mr. John: The Labour Government of this Parliament may be drawing towards their close, although there is a year to go yet. Certainly I do not dodge the fact that the consideration has been thorny and detailed. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman will know that, given the interests and the various Government Departments that are concerned, the discussions are necessarily highly complex and protracted.
I was seeking to make the point that no individual had been prejudiced, because of the sensible prosecution policy of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, who has acted as any Attorney-General would in his place.
The Fulton Report suggested in 1968 that the Government should set up an inquiry with a view to making recommendations for getting rid of unnecessary secrecy in this country. It was said that clearly the Official Secrets Act would need to be included in such a review. The then Home Secretary set up the Franks Committee in 1971. As the right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon said, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced on 22nd November 1976 that a White Paper would be supplied to the House in response to a request, and he also—this point was omitted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman—gave information about interim conclusions to which the Government were then coming. He did that in order to inform the House, and he was unfairly criticised for daring to come to the House to inform it.
In the Gracious Speech at the beginning of this Session we said that we would introduce legislative proposals for the reform of Section 2. We shall honour that commitment by publishing a White Paper.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: When?

Mr. John: We have said that we shall do so in the present Session. Obviously, I cannot commit the Government here, because other people are involved, but that promise will be honoured. It will be clone in the present Session of Parliament—

Mr. Aitken: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. John: Unless the hon. Gentleman is deficient in hearing, what I said was clear enough. If the hon. Gentleman makes a speech later and makes his points then, I shall respond to them.
I have sketched in the background because it is obvious that the general dissatisfaction with Section 2, because of its catch-all quality, is shared on all sides of the House. The blanket over the serious and trivial nature of information, all of which is classified, is something that none of us takes great comfort in, but in practice it is fair to say that the system does not work in quite the rigid way that the section might lead one to suppose. I have mentioned the prosecution policy of the Attorney-General and, in Scotland, the Lord Advocate. The Franks Report said that the section is saved from absurdity in operation only by the sparing use of the Attorney-General's discretion to prosecute.
But it also works rather differently in practice, because the section prohibits the unauthorised disclosure of official information and the release of a great deal of information is authorised, whether authorised for other people or self-authorised. As hon. Members who have read the Franks Report will know, paragraph 18 makes it clear that Ministers, for example, do a great deal of self-authorisation in the release of information. The hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) may laugh, but were the contrary situation to apply I am sure that he would be highly indignant.
Nevertheless, the Government accept the general thrust of the Franks Committee's argument that the section needs to be repealed and replaced by a narrower and more specific provision, so that criminal sanctions will be preserved to protect only that which is of real importance. That is a clear statement of the Government's intention.
That brings me to the question of what should be protected by the criminal law. The Government will make their views on that known in detail in the White Paper. The Franks Report proposed that the following categories should be protected: defence or internal security; foreign relations; the currency or the reserves; law and order; Cabinet documents; and information entrusted in confidence to the Government by a private individual or concern.
In his statement of 22nd November 1976, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that the Government intended to exclude from the list of protected categories information related to the currency and reserves and Cabinet documents that did not qualify for protection by virtue of their content. That means that if the documents, in their content, justifying classification they will be covered, but if they are Cabinet documents without such content they will not be in the list of exceptions. I can confirm on behalf of the Government that we intend to stick to that policy when the White Paper is published.
There remain some highly technical questions on the way in which a test of damage to the national interest, for example, should be incorporated in the offence in relation to all the categories that I have mentioned, how the test should be defined, and what method should be used for proving damage to the national interest for a prosecution to succeed. Although these seem to be recondite legal points, as does the highly technical question of the sort of defence that should be available, and the sort of defence that should be available to a person of a particular status, they are crucial to the enforceability and therefore the respectability of our protection of that which we deem to be in the national interest to protect from public information.
Let me deal now with the question of open government and freedom of information, and the general nature of the exercise of the reform of Section 2. The issue in such reform is settling in a defensible and up-to-date way the precise limits of criminal sanctions in the protection of official information. Such reform will not act directly to increase the flow of authorised information from the

Government, though the Government do not dispute what the Franks Committee said in its assessment that the very wide scope of Section 2 has some effect in creating a general aura of secrecy. Getting rid of that general aura is one of the points that weigh with the Government.
In the wider area of the availability of official information generally—that is, for this purpose, open Government—it would be wrong to see the reform of Section 2 as the only measure that is necessary. Its reform is needed simply for the improvement of the criminal law, but I believe that the replacement of Section 2 by a narrower provision is a necessary preliminary for consideration of how we can learn, from the experience of others, what information should be more freely and more widely available.
The Government's mind is not, as some commentators have said, hostile to this particular issue. But, because of the experience of other countries with dissimilar constitutional arrangements, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned, we need to see exactly how such a Bill, if enacted, would fit into our constitutional pattern. I can imagine nothing more calculated to be destructive of the idea of freedom of information than a Bill culled from other experience which does not mesh in well with our own pattern and which discredits the whole notion of freedom of information generally.
All that I say tonight, therefore, is that Section 2 must be got right before the wider topic can be sensibly pursued.
I return to a point that I believe is in danger of being overlooked in these arguments. That is that the Government have not, during their tenure of office, ignored the practicality of the increase in the flow of official information whilst awaiting a reform of Section 2. I believe that the present Government have been very concerned to make progress on this front and to make more information available to the public as to the decisions taken by the Government.
As was announced in July of last year, the working assumption is now to be that once Ministers have reached their conclusion on a particular major policy study, the associated factual and analytical material will be published, unless Ministers have good reason for deciding otherwise. This initiative, which in the nature


of things can only now be starting to bear fruit, is being carried out conscientiously. Two White Papers, the "Report on the Review of Highway Inquiry Procedures" and "Policy for Roads: England 1978", both published in April this year, detail ways in which more information is being given to those who are affected by decisions.
Surely, even though legislation may in the end be necessary, the aim of Government should be to make available to responsible members of a democracy the reasons for decisions which affect members of the democracy in their everyday lives. This is a way in which we are moving towards making more information available, for example, at a highway inquiry, which will in itself inform members of the public when they make their objections or weigh up why a particular decision has been made.

Mr. Max Madden: Does my hon. Friend understand that many of us have a very difficult task in trying to reconcile his words with our day-to-day experience of trying to obtain information from the Government? I had experience this week of trying to ascertain from the Department of Energy the terms of appointment on which a chairman of a regional electricity board was appointed. I was told that that was confidential information which I could not receive. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is intolerable from a Government who profess to hold dear to the principle of freedom of information?

Mr. John: First, I freely say to my hon. Friend that as I am not privy to his correspondence, no doubt because of its confidentiality, I cannot answer for other Departments, and therefore I do not know the particular example to which he is referring.
The second point that I want to make most clearly is that there will always be a balance. I do not believe that there will ever be a state of society in which people will always be able to get all the information that they want just because they want it. The balance that must be struck is the balance between what is proper to be disclosed and what is not.
I cannot comment upon a particular example—I think that it is unfair of my hon. Friend to expect me to do so—but if he will let me have details I shall

certainly look into the matter and see why it is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy falls below the standard that my hon. Friend expects of him in this regard.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Perhaps I may take that matter one stage further and ask my hon. Friend the Minister to answer it as a general question. Surely a Member of Parliament, who represents the taxpayers, who pay the salaries of Ministers and people who are appointed to various boards, is entitled to answers to questions why a particular person is appointed to a job, what his salary is, what his qualifications are, and so on. I ask my hon. Friend to answer not on the particular case but on the general issue. Why should a Member of Parliament be barred from receiving such information?

Mr. John: I have already said that I cannot possibly answer that question in general terms.

Mr. Lewis: Why not?

Mr. John: Because the circumstances vary so very greatly.

Mr. Lewis: But as a general rule.

Mr. John: No doubt my hon. Friend will make his own speech, in which he can advance that case further.
What I am saying is that the present Government, in their own dealings on the question of the way on which they form their policy, have made available information to a far greater extent than was ever done before. This, of course, is highlighted today by the announcement by the Foreign Secretary that for the future he will make available to the Stationery Office and to libraries working papers on which certain foreign policy decisions have been taken. I believe that to be an earnest of intention.
This morning, however, there was a certain article in The Times. Genius has been described as one-tenth inspiration and nine-tenths perspiration, but I believe that some political articles are nine-tenths inspiration and one-tenth perspiration. The article in The Times of this morning contained the information—I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will take the opportunity of putting it right—that
Tory lawyers review official secrets question".


This apparently refers to the setting up of a new committee by the Conservative Party to study the subject. I should have thought that that was somewhat unnecessary, in view of the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, on behalf of his party, has already given us his views on the Act. The article contains this sentence:
Should Mrs. Thatcher become Prime Minister, she will not be bound by Mr. Callaghan's policy of more open government.
The article goes on to talk about the Allen initiative.
As a statement of constitutional propriety, that is correct. No Government are bound by their predecessors, of either the same party or another party. But the implication is carried in that sentence, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, that the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition will not carry on with the policy which has been started—of releasing official information by Government Departments to the extent that the present Government have done. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will take this opportunity of correcting that impression and of saying that any Conservative Government would carry on with the policy, already started, of making official information more widely available.

Sir M. Havers: First, the Committee which is referred to as being set up has been set up, and it has concluded its deliberations. That was some time ago. Secondly, I should have thought that the answer that the Minister of State needs was quite clear from my speech. I talked about the balance of public interest and I said that it is absolutely essential that only the most important documents, where the interests of the State are concerned, should be preserved as classified documents.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: What about the wages and salaries of chairmen of boards?

Mr. John: I am glad to have that assurance. I hope, nevertheless, that generally it will become more widely known, because for a correspondent to write in those terms seems to indicate that information should be more freely available to correspondents than, perhaps, to hon. Members.
I am here to listen to the views of hon. Members. We shall take into account everything that is said in the debate. But we believe that the first priority—I think that we share this view with the right hon. and learned Gentleman—is to get Section 2 right. Therefore, when the White Paper is issued—it will be issued during this Session—we shall put forward detailed proposals which I hope will aid and point the discussions, so that the legislation, when it comes, will be better than, and better able to stand up to the test of time than, the 1911 Act.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Leon Brittan: It would be very hard to find today any friends of Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act, yet nearly six years after the Franks Report and three years after the Government's firm promise of what they described as reasonably early legislation we have still had no legislation and we have still not even had a White Paper. In those circumstances, the criticisms about delay levelled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) seem to me to be very mild compared with what the Government's conduct justifies.
The consensus that Section 2 should be changed is based upon a view that it is far too wide in its ambit, covering as it does the whole of the operations of government, and far too broad in the unlimited discretion that it confers on officials to decide what to disclose and what disclosures to authorise. So broad a discretion is barely consistent with any proper concept of the rule of law, which is entirely dependent on certainty of application and the most limited nature of any discretion that must exist.
The damage that a law of this kind creates cannot be gauged by the number of prosecutions that are brought. Therefore, for the Minister to say that only one prosecution was brought, and that one jolly well ought to have been brought on any view, is no defence to the delay in legislating, because the very existence of the law as it stands faces the Press with an ever-present implied threat and helps to perpetuate the all-pervading atmosphere of secrecy that has for far too long pervaded British government.
In other words, that section of the Act is simply indefensible, yet it is still there. Why is that? It is still there, inspite of the Government's assurances, because they have not had the courage to fight and overcome the strenuous rearguard action mounted in the more obscurantist corners of Whitehall. That is the real explanation.
But it is precisely because the present law is indefensible that some people, some people in the Press itself, have argued that it is better to leave it as it is, that it is better to leave on the statute book a law that is unworkable and discredited than to substitute for it a law that is narrower, more rational, and therefore more workable and more usable. I believe that that view, although it is widely held in the Press, is profoundly mistaken. It is intellectually disreputable and politically cowardly. Either there is no need for Section 2 in any shape or form, in which case it should simply be repealed, or there is need for it in some shape or form, in which case Parliament must face the problem and get on with the job of creating a sensible and workable law rather than simply leaving an unworkable one on the statute book.
To suggest that there should be no Official Secrets Act implies either that we have no secrets of any kind or that there is no role for the criminal law in the protection of such secrets as we have. We may not have many secrets, we may not have as many as we once had, and we may sometimes exaggerate the importance of the secrets that we have, but it would be wrong to suggest that even today there are no matters the disclosure of which would gravely harm the national interest—in relation, for example, to such matters as military installations and delicate diplomatic negotiations.
It would be equally wrong to say that there was no room for the criminal law in defending secrets of that limited kind. The alternative, which is to rely simply on the disciplinary procedures within the Civil Service, is plainly inadequate, bearing in mind that there will be people who have left the Civil Service or the Armed Forces and against whom disciplinary measures are wholly inapt. In respect of such people, at the very least the criminal law is necessary in the most serious cases.
Therefore, I conclude that there is a role for the criminal law, and I think that the House should support the broad approach of the Franks Committee, drastically cutting down the categories in respect of which disclosure is criminal and in most of them granting the protection of the criminal law to such disclosures only where there has been proper classification.
The Government claimed in their statement of 22nd November 1976 that their provisional proposals were more liberal than those in the Franks Report. The Government certainly have not done anything about those proposals, so such a claim does not attract many accolades from those of us who wish to be liberal in these matters. But I doubt whether that claim is even sustainable.
Whereas the Minister mentioned two respects in which he reaffirmed Government policy on a more liberal direction than that of the Franks Report, as enunciated in the statement of 22nd November 1976, he did not mention that in that statement, which I take it also still stands, the proposals put forward by the Government, unlike those of the Franks Committee, involved extending the law to security and intelligence matters, whether or not they were classified, and substantially extending the "defence confidential" category of classification.
This point illustrates the difficulty that we are in. If the Government claim to adopt an approach that is more liberal than that of the Franks Committee, it can be scrutinised only in the context of legislation. It is exactly that kind of opening up or narrowing of the categories that can be scrutinised only in a committee that is legislating. To leave in the air a bald assertion of greater liberalisation, without showing the colour of the legislative money for nearly two years, is wholly unsatisfactory.
I therefore think that at this stage we should confine ourselves to deciding whether the general Franks approach is the right one, as I have suggested it is, although in one respect I find it impossible to agree with the Franks Committee. That is the matter to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred—the suggestion that before a prosecution is brought the correct classification of the document should be reviewed by the


Minister. I regard that as a totally unacceptable recommendation, because it is no sort of protection against improper classification. It certainly will not be regarded as an adequate protection if the head of the Department responsible for the original classification is the one who looks at the matter again.
I believe that one of the main reasons why the Franks Report received a comparatively lukewarm Press was dissatisfaction in the media over the idea of the same Government Department being judge and jury in its own cause. I think that my right hon. and learned Friend's suggestion of an independent review body, chaired by a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, is greatly to be welcomed.
There are bound to be suspicions about classification procedures. We should always remember what Chapman Pincher told the Franks Committee:
in my experience … 'politically embarrassing' is a higher security classification than 'Top Secret'".
That seems to me a most apt comment. The protection provided by an independent review body is necessary.
With that slight addition, I should greatly welcome legislation on the lines of the Franks Report. I believe that it has been unnecessarily and inexcusably delayed.
Associated with the discussion of the Franks Report there has been the further suggestion that we should have a Freedom of Information Act, on American lines. In principle, how can anyone oppose such a measure? Why should the citizens and the media not have access to what is done in their name by the organs of government? I certainly thought on those lines for a long time and felt that the concept of accountable government—a concept which is infinitely preferable to open government, made such legislation desirable. After looking in more detail at the way in which things worked out in the United States, I now have grave doubts about the desirability of going down that path in this country.
The original Freedom of Information Act in the United States, passed in 1966, was ineffective. It was only after it was amended, over the presidential veto in 1974, that it acquired teeth and led to floods of requests for information. But

that information has not, for the most part, been sought by people seeking to reform government or scrutinise Government operations in a genuine way. For the most part, the Act has not been used by citizens or an inquiring Press; instead, it has become a tool of business and the legal profession, operated for the benefit of clients at public expense. One federal agency, the Federal Trade Commission, has reported that 67·3 per cent. of the requests for information have come from corporations and only 5·3 per cent. from the media.
A federal Food and Drugs Administration commissioner has said that 90 per cent. of the requests received by his agency were for purposes that amounted to industrial espionage. A whole host of consultants and firms have sprung up offering businesses their services to use the Act for the benefit of commercial gain. It has not been used substantially for the purpose for which it has been introduced. That has been widely recognised in the United States. In addition, and hardly surprisingly, the introduction of this legislation has led to formidable cost and massive extra bureaucracy. The cost of the Act is now running at $22 million a year and is still growing. The average cost of complying with a request is $146·67. The payment averages $5·84. The FBI assigned 400 agents to review 10 million pages of documents to deal with the Act and comply with its requirements.
To deal with the amended legislation the Food and Drugs Administration increased its staff from seven to 40. Requests are now running at the rate of 12,500 a month, or 150,000 a year. That is a formidable burden of bureaucracy and cost for any nation to undertake, certainly for this country.
In addition, the effect of all this has been increasingly counter-productive. What has happened is that less information has been put on paper to escape this scrutiny. The Federal Communications Commission simply destroyed a list of 10 million law-breakers rather than have the names disclosed. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which insures banks, warned lawyers approaching it not to write letters which might be damaging to their clients because they would have to be disclosed. Instead, it told them to talk on the telephone.
Unscheduled meetings in corridors have become one of the major growth industries in the United States. What has inevitably happened is that people are driven further down this road. Having had the 1965 Act and the 1974 Act, in 1976 the United States Congress passed the Government in the Sunshine Act, requiring Government agency meetings to be open to the public, with exceptions, requiring minutes to be available, trans-scripts to be taken, and public notice to be given even of meetings which were to be closed to the public. The result of that has been a massive increase in paper work, together with a great delay in the conduct of government, because a meeting cannot be held unless there is time to give the public notice of it, even though the public will not be admitted to that meeting.
Beyond that the road leads on. There are now before Congress proposals—the Ertel Brademas proposals—for extending public scrutiny to the presidency and Congress. This is a road which, if followed in this country, would have the interesting consequence that the constituency correspondence of every hon. Member would be open to scrutiny by everyone in the country.
It may be said that the path that I have described is a reductio ad absurdum and that it is not necessary to go all the way down that road. I believe that this is not just a question of the Americans going a bit too far and running away with things; the successive steps have led, logically and inexorably, from one to the other. If a Government were committed to this path and evasive steps were taken it would be necessary to follow the original Act with something like the Government in the Sunshine Act. So it goes on. Once one has started on that path it is not possible to stop short.
For us, the best protection of the citizen is a free Press and a free Parliament. As it stands, the Official Secrets Act is an obstacle to both and should be repealed. But because Governments are obsessively secretive, let us not be too readily beguiled into seeking a different cure, which may be worse than the present disease.

7.56 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I apologise on behalf of the hon.

Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren), who wanted to be here but has taken the chair at a meeting which I was to have chaired. I was interested in the absurd comments of the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan). If things are as bad as he alleges, I say only two things to him—Watergate and Nixon.
The Freedom of Information Act was a great help as regards Mr. Nixon and Watergate. I should like to see a similar Act in this country. I welcome the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers). I was not too enraptured by the speech of my hon. Friend the Minister of State. However, I realise that his speech was prepared by civil servants. The hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby has pointed out that it is the civil servants who rule, and this is where the objections come from. This is why we have had the delay and lack of progress. The civil servants do not like such proposals. Why is this? It is because the Official Secrets Act covers up their misdemeanours, their mistakes, their errors and sometimes more—their blatant misleading of the House of Commons and hon. Members.
We had a case recently when a top civil servant admitted that he had misled a Committee of the House. He said that he did not mean it, but he kept the Committee in that state for 18 months. He did not reveal matters until "Your Disobedient Servant", the Chapman report, came out. The Official Secrets Act is a lovely weapon in the hands of these well-paid, well-financed, well-perked top civil servants. Only this week—I think this came from Tribune originally—we discovered that some of these civil servants were to get a 20 per cent. increase in salary. They do not like such information coming out.
I am certain that if we had had an Official Information Act on the Swedish model—or, indeed, on the American model—we would not have had the Crown Agents fiasco. We would not have had the almost daily but certainly weekly errors and misleading information which we get from the Treasury. We would be able to ascertain whether information was being deliberately fed into the hands of Ministers. Mr. Chapman has said it and it has not been disputed. Some of the civil servants have disputed it, but they


have not given chapter and verse in answer to his claims.
I am concerned that the Minister, sitting on the Front Bench, has admitted that he cannot say why a Member of Parliament should not be told what is the salary of a chairman of a board, why he has been appointed or what are his qualifications. Should not a Member of Parliament have the right to know? Should not the electorate have the right to know? Is not the electorate made up of taxpayers who pay the Minister's salary and who pay the salaries of all these top civil servants? Surely the people are entitled to have this information.
I wonder whether any employer in private industry would accept the position that his employees were not entitled to have information about their working conditions. But we cannot get information here in the House. We know what happens when we put Questions down. The information is available but, if it is felt to be embarrassing to the Civil Service or to a Department or a Minister, civil servants will find a way of blocking it. They will get in touch with the Table Office and say that they cannot accept the Question for this or that reason. The Table Office will then try to get round it, and perhaps eventually the Question will be put down. The civil servants will then find ways of not answering the Question or of referring to some extraneous matter which has nothing to do with it.
If we had a Freedom of Information Act, there would, I agree, be some fun and games. There would be many inquiries, and many hon. Members would not have the trouble to go to the Table Office to try to get Questions put down.
We have now something that is worse than Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. We have the development of computers and data banking. Records are being built up on Members of this House and on the electorate throughout the country of which they know nothing. They are not entitled to know whether the information is correct. They are not entitled to amend or alter it. This information is being fed through various Government Departments.
The Department of Health and Social Security has computerisation in regard to finance, the number of payments, contri-

butions and all the rest of it. There is also computerisation of medical records. There is not a Member of this House or a person in the country who is entitled to see his own personal medical record. It is a secret. It is held in confidence and people are not allowed to see their own medical records. They have no right to demand to see them. But I believe that every person is entitled to have information that is in his own personal medical record. Parents are not entitled to know what is on record about their children. They are not entitled to say whether such information is true or false.
If, as I hope, we have an amendment of Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act, I feel that we ought to go one step further and ask for a Freedom of Information Act. Then, if all the abuses which have been mentioned were to happen, we could deal with them.
I remember the time when the National Health Service was introduced. It is now, I believe, celebrating its thirtieth anniversary. At the time when it was being set up, I remember Conservative Members in this House saying that if we had a National Health Service people would go and have their teeth out just because the service was free. Hon. Members may laugh, but that was actually said at the time. It was said that everyone would be asking for spectacles because they were free.
There may have been a little abuse when the scheme started. There may have been a few people—I was not one of them—who had their teeth out because the Service was free. There may have been some such people, but I do not think that the National Health Service was the reason for their actions. They were probably not normal. There may be abuse on the part of some people, but I am quite sure that, except for those few people, the Service has been used in the way that was intended.
The point I am making is that we have no rights at all in any of the areas that I have mentioned. We are able to ask a few questions here, but that does not mean that we have them answered satisfactorily. Only today the Prime Minister said "We shall have to see what the trade union conferences want" or words to that effect. That was on the question of wages. I will tell the Prime Minister that the Trades Union Congress, the Labour


Party conference and Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all asked for the amendment of Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act long before devolution, long before any question of prices and incomes arose and long before any wage freeze. What have we got? We have simply another promise that a White Paper will be issued this Session. We have promises, but shall we have action? That is where I have some doubts.
When he spoke, the Minister said, in effect, that the Government are quite willing to have open government. What that means is that after the Government have met and considered matters they are quite willing to let the public have certain information. We get the information, in other words, after the Minister has made his decision about it. Why cannot he let the public know beforehand? Why cannot he let the public know what information and advice he is getting? Why cannot the public be told what is being discussed?
Obviously, there are matters involving State secrets and military matters which are in a different category, but why do we have to have secrecy about matters of roads and town and country planning? The first that the public ever hear about a road is when the decision has already been made. People are consulted only after the decision has been made. That is also what happens in this House. Invariably hon. Members are told that the Government, of whatever party political complexion, have decided to do something. We can then either lump it or leave it. We might be able to make some minor amendments, but that is all.
I want to see a Freedom of Information Act which will enable the ordinary elector to have the opportunity of getting information of a public nature, other than, obviously, State secrets and criminal records. I want ordinary members of the public to have the opportunity of seeing their own personal records and of altering and correcting them. I also want to see the opportunity given to the Government to carry out their promises made at the time of the last two General Elections. I believe that the people have the right to know these things. When they get the right to know, I think we shall find that Parliament and the Civil Service will improve. By jingo, in recent weeks that seems to be necessary.
Therefore, do not let us be fobbed off again. Do not let us be fobbed off with a White Paper which promises something after the next General Election. There are some of us who will not—I repeat, will not—support the Government on some of these issues if they again try to fob us off as they have done in the past.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: The habit of secrecy in government is deeply ingrained in this country, far too deeply ingrained for the good of the country in the present climate. I should first like to take issue with the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) with regard to what he said about the Freedom of Information Act, and its working, in the United States. He presented a viewpoint which has been put across by the bureaucracy in the United States exactly as it was obviously put over to him. He swallowed it hook, line and sinker. He seems to have ignored the fact that the bureaucracy in the United States was totally opposed to a Freedom of Information Act. It opposed it all the way along and it had to be imposed.
As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the Act was passed in 1966, but effectively it did not come into operation until the beginning of 1968 and was completely ineffective until 1974, when it was amended across the veto of the President, President Nixon.

Mr. Brittan: As it happens, it was President Ford. While I am on my feet, I should point out that I have not spoken to a single member of the American bureaucracy.

Mr. Hooson: The hon. and learned Gentleman presented a picture of the working of the Freedom Information Act which was totally different from one given to me recently by an American general serving in Europe. He hold me that he thought that the Freedom of Information Act had conferred many benefits on American citizens, including the soldiery. It was amended in 1974, because up to that time it virtually was not enforceable. The amendments of 1974 had the effect of allowing the bureaucracy 10 days to respond to any request for information and a further 21


days thereafter to supply it. It also provided a right of appeal to the courts in the event of the Department concerned not choosing to supply the information.
As the hon. and learned Gentleman said, at federal level there are at present an average of 150,000 requests for information. The Administration claim, although this has never been substantiated, that it costs 20 million dollars annually to administer. It is estimated that in the coming year it will cost 22 million dollars. The actual estimate, given when the Bill was passed into American law, was 200 million dollars a year. The acutal cost has been one-tenth of the original estimate.
The hon. and learned Gentleman did not mention the fact that of the 150,000 requests, 44,000 are to the Defence Department, which has the largest number of requests. Many of them are from individual officers and serving soldiers who want to know something about their records. Very often a man's whole career can be blighted by misinformation given in a record. Thirty thousand requests were to the Justice Department of which just over half were to the FBI which is, I understand, the Department which most resents the working of the Freedom of Information Act.
One thing which must be remembered is the effectiveness of this Act. No one would have known of the organised campaign to discredit the Reverend Martin Luther King if it had not been for the Freedom of Information Act. It was through the workings of that Act that the American people learnt for the first time of the organised campaign to discredit that very fine leader. It is only because of the Freedom of Information Act that people have discovered that the most incredible trivia is included in the records of highly reputable, fine characters in the United States, where from time to time various organisations have sought to discredit them. An example was given to me yesterday of someone's record, which has been disclosed, which stated that he had not paid a five-dollar fine for overstaying his time on a parking lot in a Mid-West town. This was put down on a very important official record which was kept in Washington in order to try to find something to discredit this particular person.
I have no doubt whatever that there must be very important shortcomings in the workings of this American Act. It must be very difficult for the bureaucracy to deal with it and with all the growing pains involved in this new process of government. That obviously has to be taken into account. Nevertheless, one should not present the kind of unbalanced view, which the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby did, without giving the credit side and pointing out the effectiveness of this Act in many ways.
When one compares the cost of the Freedom of Information Act of 20 million dollars a year with, for example, the federal information budget—which gives the kind of information which the Government want fed out, as opposed to information they do not—one can see that it is absolute chicken feed. Although complaints have been made about the Freedom of Information Act and its workings in the United States, both on the grounds of cost and its administrative burden, I do not think that they are large for a democracy. The credit side is very important because the Act is an enormous protection for individuals against the misuse of power and position within a democracy. That is something we should not lightly underestimate.

Mr. Nigel Forman: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman also accept the likely contention that 20 million dollars, or whatever the figure may be, may be a rather low figure when compared with the amount of money that can be saved by the early and timely release of such information?

Mr. Hooson: I entirely take that point. I merely wanted to correct what I thought was a rather unbalanced view given by the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby.
I come to the main subject of our debate. We are dealing with a matter which amounts to an appalling failure of the present Government to fulfil their manifesto pledge. According to a statement in the New Statesman on 18th April that pledge was:
to repeal the Official Secrets Act and pass 'a measure to put a burden on the public authorities to justify withholding information'.


I do not suppose that there are many votes in matters which concern the freedom of the individual and individual rights in this country. So often these kinds of issue are lost in the general campaign during a General Election. Nevertheless, this failure is a very important failure of this Government.
The pledge in the Queen's Speech last October was a much narrower one, namely, to repeal the provisions of Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. Even that has not been done. There has been a weekly expectation of a White Paper, certainly since the turn of the year, and a weekly disappointment that it has not appeared. I can only conclude that no one in the Cabinet is really committed to the idea of either the repeal of the Official Secrets Act or to the provision of a Freedom of Information Act.
On behalf of my party, I had talks with the Lord Chancellor, the Home Secretary and the law officers in the autumn of last year, when it appeared to me that there was then enthusiasm for these proposals. There were detailed discussions about the matter. I certainly submitted our written submissions for reform in December of last year. Since then there is no doubt whatever that the Cabinet, and individual members of it, have been under great pressure from the Civil Service which values too greatly secrecy in Government. No doubt the Cabinet has also had the advice of the over-cautious. The truth is that it is very easy to do what the Minister did today and detail the difficulties of, for example, providing a freedom of information Act or detailing the difficulties of repealing Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. We can detail the difficulties for as long as we like, but there will be no reform of this legislation until someone takes hold of it by the scruff of the neck and determines that there shall be reform.

Mr. Aitken: Another Lib-Lab pact.

Mr. Hooson: The hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) knows that if his party had been in power there would have been no chance of a Freedom of Information Act. Certainly there is far more support for it on the Government Benches than there is among members of his own party.
The right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) detailed

the history of the Official Secrets Act 1911 and the way that it went through this House. It took about half an hour to complete all its stages. There was virtually no Second Reading debate. It was a Back-Bencher who raised the issue.
The Bill was introduced into the House of Lords in late July 1911 by Viscount Haldane, and there was a debate occupying five and a half columns in Hansard. There were four speakers. The legislation that it was repealing—the 1899 Official Secrets Act—had itself been introduced by a private Member into this House, no doubt with the support of the then Government, but there was little debate even on that. Therefore, throughout parliamentary history there has been very little debate of the provisions of any official secrets legislation.
During the 1911 debate in the House of Commons, Colonel Seely said:
It is undoubtedly in the public interest that this Bill should be passed, and passed at once. It is highly undesirable, no doubt, that any Bill should go through its stages so rapidly as this has done, and it certainly cannot be taken as a precedent. If my hon. Friends will read the Bill they will see that though the actual change in the law is slight … it is perfectly true to say that none of His Majesty's loyal subjects run the least risk whatever of having their liberties infringed in any degree or particular whatever."—[Official Report, 18th August 1911; Vol. XXIX, c. 2257.]

Mr. Grieve: This really was a manifestation of the fact that at that stage of our history the role and area of government was extremely small and was largely concerned with public order within the realm and with maintaining the defence of the country. That was why we had an Official Secrets Act in the terms that we did. Today we have government encompassing the whole area of national life. Is not that the case?

Mr. Hooson: I cannot altogether agree with the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve). He takes far too simplistic a view of this matter. But he is right that the area of government is very much greater today than it was then, and it is time that we looked at these matters afresh. Here we are, 67 years on, with the same Act and obviously even deeper misgivings about it.
Mr. Justice Caulfield, in the case which concerned the hon. Member for


Thanet, East, suggested that the Act should be "pensioned off". The Franks Report referred to Section 2 as "a mess". Here we are with still nothing done about it.
There is obviously too much secrecy. As Professor Wade said,
It has become one of the great vested interests of Government. It is a classic example of bad law creating bad practice.
The Act itself is too obscure and uncertain. There is no doubt that it is open to misuse. No one so far has mentioned Section 1 of the Act, but I happen to believe that that should be repealed as well and replaced by a Security of the Realm Act or by an Espionage Act dealing only with espionage.
It is very interesting that in the 1911 debates, so far as they went, everyone assumed that the Act was concerned only with espionage. Hon. Members referred constantly to spying and the results of spying. That was the only topic to which they directed their minds. But Section 1 itself could be replaced and, if we removed all provisions concerned with national security into one Act, it would be much easier to deal with all the other matters in a separate Act.
There are grounds for thinking that it is the integrity of the Law Officers which is our protection. I am not in any way underestimating the protection that is provided by the necessity for having the permission of a Law Officer before a prosecution is launched. But it is only the integrity of our Law Officers which prevents possible misuse of the Act under either Section 1 or 2.

Mr. Christopher Price: In the 1899 Act, the hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware, the Attorney-General's fiat was necessary for both arrest and charge. One of the changes that slipped through in 1911 was that the Attorney-General's fiat became necessary only for the charge. That has proved to be very significant in a recent case.

Mr. Hooson: Obviously there was a very good reason for that change. If one is dealing with spies and has to go to the Attorney-General to get power of arrest, the spy can leave the country before being arrested. That was the reason for that change. Although it may

have resulted in injustice in a recent case, there was an obvious reason for it.
I come now to the Franks approach. I think that we should go considerably further than Franks. What the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby was prepared to do to reform the law did not match his sentiments. I agree entirely with his sentiments on the need for more accountable government, as opposed to more open government. However, he is not prepared to do much about it. He suggests that if we implement Franks and change in some way the review of classification, not leaving it entirely to the heads of Departments in the Civil Service, that is enough. I do not think that it is.
I do not agree that the supervision of classification or any appeal on a classification should be referred to a Committee composed of a Law Lord presiding and two members of the Privy Council, as suggested by the right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon. I would prefer to see a Select Committee of this House able to consider classification, with a permanent Committee sitting here. There are always sniggers from the Conservative Benches whenever it is suggested that a Select Committee of hon. Members should have any responsibility in such matters as this. We are elected Members representing the people, and I think that it should be a Select Committee which looks into these matters. The assumption that Select Committees are irresponsible does not accord with my experience of them, and I have served on a few in my days in the House.

Mr. Aitken: It is often alleged, perhaps unfairly, that decisions made on official secrets prosecutions over the years have been influenced by political considerations. Although the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) paid tribute to the integrity of the Law Officers, that integrity, rightly or wrongly, has been challenged and argued over, and almost every Attorney-General who has been placed in the difficult position of deciding on a prosecution has been criticised because his actions have been thought by someone or other to have been taken on political grounds. One state of affairs that would guarantee that criticism being made even more strongly would be if there were a group


of politicians in this House either taking decisions on whom or whom not to prosecute or on what the classification rules should be. I cannot think of a worse solution.

Mr. Hooson: They would not take any decision on the question who was or was not to be prosecuted, but they would be entitled to look at the rules of classification and to review them. Then there could be an appeal, on the ground that the rules whereby the classification was originally made had not been properly interpreted. Then it would be for the judge to decide. But there should be a review of the rules of classification, and that should be left to a Select Committee.

Mr. Brittan: That is what my right hon. and learned Friend proposed.

Mr. Hooson: That was not my understanding of what he said. My understanding was that he suggested that in a specific case if a man is to be prosecuted there should be the right of appeal, on that specific point of classification, to a committee of Privy Councillors, chaired by a Law Lord. That is a different matter from having a Select Committee looking continually at the rules of classification as interpreted by different Departments.
The important thing is the question of classification. I do not disagree with the suggestion that there should be very limited areas where classification is necessary. Clearly there should be classification in matters of defence and internal security, international relations, and law and order—particularly those matters covering criminal investigation and the security of prisons. There should be classification on intelligence and security, although proposals to protect all information in this area, whether classified or not, seem to be rather extreme. There should be classification of Cabinet documents only so far as they relate to the categories that I have mentioned. Also, very importantly, the confidences of the citizen should be protected, and these could be subject to internal sanctions of Government Departments or criminal sanctions.
Rather than have the elaborate system of Franks classification, three main classes in this area would suffice. First, there is information that should be exempted from access, the unauthorised disclosure

of which would attract criminal penalties. Secondly, there should be information to which there is no right of access, but which does not attract criminal sanctions for unauthorised disclosure, although obviously there would be internal disciplinary sanctions. Thirdly, there should be all other information to which there is a right of access.
The most disappointing aspect of this matter has been that the Government themselves, although they had draft papers on this matter circulating in their Departments in January this year, at no time have published a paper that we could consider and discuss. They have not put forward their own statutory proposals. This amounts to a very great failure.
In July 1977 the Head of the Civil Service sent a memorandum to all his heads of Department. That memorandum was entitled "Disclosure of Official Information". It said:
During the debate on the Address on 24th November last
—it is interesting to note that it has taken about nine months to gestate—
the Prime Minister announced that it would be the Government's policy in future to publish as much as possible of the factual and analytical material used as the background to major policy studies.
It went on in the second paragraph to say:
The change may seem simply to be one of degree and timing. But it is intended to mark a real change of policy, even if the initial step is modest.
Presumably that is what the Minister of State was referring to in his speech. In paragraph 8 of this letter the Head of Civil Service went on to say:
There are many who would have wanted the Government to go much further (on the lines of the formidably burdensome Freedom of Information Act in the USA). Our prospects of being able to avoid such an expensive development here could well depend on whether we can show that the Prime Minister's statement had reality and results.
From the letter one can see immediately the attitude of our Civil Service. It is exactly the same as that of the bureaucracy in the United States. Yet whatever it does it wants to avoid having a similar Act here. That is why the Head of the Civil Service is encouraging his heads of Departments to comply with the Prime Minister's dictum.
There has been very little to show that the Departments have complied. One can give the odd example here and there, but as far as the public are concerned there is very little difference between the practice of this Government and that of any Government preceding them. On the whole, the Government's record in this very important field of official secrets and freedom of information is deplorable, in view of their manifesto commitment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. It will be no breach of the Officials Secrets Act if I mention that the winding-up speeches must begin at 9.35 p.m. Therefore, if the six or seven hon. Members who still wish to participate in the debate will limit their speeches to 10 minutes, they will be accommodated.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) made a good speech, certainly as to the first part, but perhaps he went on a little too long in his last comments. In general, he made his case extremely well. I do not want to become bogged down in any proposals, but I wish to say what I believe should be done in future.
The promise in the Labour Party manifesto was as follows:
To replace the Official Secrets Act by a measure to put the burden on public authorities to justify wihholding information.
That went much further than saying that we need to change Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. It was a promise for positive enlarging legislation.
I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan), and I agreed completely with the criticisms made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. I do not believe that we have to follow slavishly the freedom of information legislation in the United States of America, nor do we have to follow exactly similar legislation produced in the Scandinavian countries. In my view, we should seek to lay down freedom of information legislation whose provisions are particular to this country. I believe that we should seek to enact such legislation in the interests of open, democratic government.
The Opposition constantly suggest that Labour Members want this country to be run on the lines of an East European authoritarian State. I remind the Opposition that there is no committee of the Soviet Communist Party which has sat down to work out a freedom of information Act in the Soviet Union—and that will not happen.
The fact is that a committee of the Labour Party is on the point of publishing a freedom of information Bill—legislation on which we have worked at considerable length and which in our view is applicable to British conditions. That is a clear indication that, so far as is humanly possible within certain limits, we want the most open government that we can get. One recognises that there are limits because, for example, one cannot allow total freedom of information on defence, security or foreign diplomatic relations. However, no doubt we could go much further on the subject of foreign diplomatic relations than we do now. There used to be an old radical school which argued for what it called open diplomacy. Certainly we could have more open diplomacy, but there are limits.
There are also limits on the dissemination of commercial secrets, as I know from my personal experience in the Department of Industry. Obviously one learns a great deal about various commercial interests. It would be wrong for there to be disclosure when competition is involved, as it sometimes is, between, say, private enterprise and public authorities. One cannot disclose every piece of information. However, we can go a long way in the direction of disclosure—certainly much further than we have gone up to now.
I believe that not only should we be concerned with Section 2 of the Act but that we should also give close examination to the effects of Section 1.
I shall not make a long speech, because I merely wish to put on record the fact that the members of the national executive of the Labour Party hope that when the Government's White Paper is published—it is long overdue, and we wish that it could have been published earlier—it will provide not only for changes in the Official Secrets Act but for the enactment of some type of freedom of information legislation. I emphasise that


recently we have been working very hard to produce a Bill on this subject. We cannot say that there is not one available, because we are going to have one available. We should like to have seen that done.
When the White Paper is produced we want to see the pledge carried out in the Queen's Speech, which was much more restrictive than the pledge in the manifesto. Section 2 must be dealt with We also want a clear understanding in the White Paper of the type of future legislation that is being produced by the Government, which in our view should be along the lines of a freedom of information Act. That is vital in the interests of good government.
I finish by quoting what James Madison, a famous American, said as far back as 1822:
A popular government without popular Information or the means of acquiring it is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy or perhaps both. Knowledge will for ever govern ignorance and the people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the powers which knowledge gives them.
If we are to have good democratic, open government in this country—we have good government compared with other countries, hut it needs to be better—involving all the people, we must have the legislation that we think is vital and that the Labour Party is pledged to introduce. I admit that we are late in introducing such legislation, but the party is pledged to it and we want the Government to act along these lines.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: If I were Lord Franks and the Government asked me to chair a committee of any kind, I would tell them in fairly offensive language to go and look elsewhere. What is Lord Franks's history? In 1971 he chaired with distinction the important committee to review Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. He reported in September 1972. In 1973 the then Conservative Government in principle accepted what he said. The Labour Government, on coming to office shortly afterwards, in principle accepted what he said. Yet here we are in 1978 and nothing has happened.
The year before last, Lord Franks generously gave up his time to chair a committee, of which I happened to be a

member, dealing with a case for of against a register of dependants of immigrants. Lord Franks was told by the then Home Secretary that the purpose of the report, which we were asked to produce with great urgency, was the continuation of debate. We produced the report. We were asked to produce it by October. We got the report to the Ministers by the beginning of November. The report was published in February 1977. Here we are in June 1978, nearly 18 months later, and the Government still have not found time to debate the report of Lord Franks. I therefore have some sympathy with Lord Franks.
I say to the Minister—I do not say that his Government are guilty rather than any other Government—that it is not good enough for us to set up committees under distinguished chairmen, with distinguished members, as were on the original Franks Committee, ask them to do an immense amount of work and then not even debate their reports or not implement them when we say that we agree with them.

Mr. John: Of course I understand that, but is not a further cause of disappointment to Lord Franks the fact that, notwithstanding the rejection of a register of dependants by his committee, the Conservative Party still advocates it as though Lord Franks and his committee had never existed?

Mr. Carlisle: That intervention saddens me even more because it means that the Minister of State has not even read the Franks Report on a register of dependants, because at no stage did we reject the proposal. We said that the acceptance or rejection of a register was a matter for Parliament to decide after debate. We merely set out the facts on which the decision should be assessed. If the Minister has any doubt about that, he should ask his hon. Friend who was a member of the committee.
The real objection to Section 2 is that it is far too wide and too much of a "catch-all" provision. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) that obviously there must be some secrets that a society and a Government are entitled to retain. There must be matters of defence, internal security and those involving diplomatic relations with other


countries on which a Government are entitled to say that it is essential that certain information should remain secret and that they should have the sanction of the criminal law to back that up.
Equally, and just as important, there is much information that comes to a Government relating to matters concerning a private individual. Often he is required to provide that information by statute, whether it concerns matters to do with his health, his financial position or whatever. He gives that information on the understanding that it will remain confidential, and it is not sufficient to say that the internal disciplinary methods of the Civil Service can ensure that confidentiality. The individual citizen is entitled to feel that the confidentiality of which he has been assured is backed by the sanction of the criminal law.
On the other hand, there is the equally important principle that the citizen should have the right to know as much as possible. One of the problems of democracy is striking the right balance, and the main criticism of Section 2 has always been that it has not got the balance right and that in the complicated sort of government that we have today it goes too far to discourage the communication of information and further than is necessary to protect the interests that should be protected by the criminal law.
The Minister said that, in practice, prosecutions that are brought under the Act are justified. I agree, but that misses part of the point. The question is how much information is being withheld from publication which we cannot justify being withheld.
Another criticism concerns the lack of clarity in the law. Newspapers and the media are entitled to know in advance what they may print. It is not sufficient for them to have to rely on the good sense of the Attorney-General not to bring proceedings on matters that they believe it is in the interest of the public to know, but which, tecnhically, still come within the scope of the Official Secrets Act.
There is a body of opinion expressing concern that, since much private information is going on to computer, there is a danger that the confidentiality that has existed in the past is becoming less clear.
The Minister said that only one charge had been brought in recent years, but he

will realise that that is not necessarily a case for the Act or even for its emplementation. It is possible to reach a situation in which a law gets into such disrepute that it is difficult to implement. Once it has been said, as Mr. Justice Caulfield said at the end of a trial which received considerable publicity, that a law should be pensioned off, it is difficult for the Attorney-General to activate it on other occasions if he feels that he wishes to do so. Therefore, there is a case for action of a legislative nature to be taken.
I think that the Franks Committee got it about right on the basis of information that requires to be classified. I believe that it got it about right as regards the type of activities that should be covered by the various sections of the Act.
I am somewhat doubtful about the recommendation of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) with regard to the Law Lord and two members of the Privy Council. I can understand the objection of the Minister in his own Department, but I am not sure whether my right hon. and learned Friend has it right.
I am glad to hear that at long last a White Paper is coming. I take it from the Minister's commitment that he means that it will appear before the end of July. I hope that we shall see a Bill in the near future dealing with this whole area, at least as a basis on which Parliament can further debate what should be the right limitation of the criminal law in the dissemination of information.

8.52 p.m.

Miss Jo Richardson: It is not often that I have the occasion to be thankful to the Opposition for introducing a debate, but I have a feeling that if they had not chosen to use part of one of their Supply Days to debate the Official Secrets Act we might never have had the opportunity to debate it and all the surrounding problems that have arisen from it.
Not one hon. Member has been able to congratulate the Government on their speed in introducing the commitment contained in the Labour Party manifesto. There is concern in the House, and it is true that there is growing concern among the general public, about the operation of the Act. There is concern about the general problems of secrecy and the sort


of veil of secrecy that surrounds more or less everything that the Government do. I am talking not about the Labour Government in isolation but about Governments as a whole. I am talking about successive Governments. It is something that has existed during not only the period of the Labour Government but for ever in the history of Great Britain. It is about time that we put a stop to it and moved towards that in which we really believe and that which people want—namely, much more open government.
More and more people now seem to be running the risk of being caught under the Act. That is because as the sections are worded they can catch anyone receiving or discovering any piece of Civil Service information. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) was able to place on the record the Labour Party's commitment in its manifesto not to amend the Act but to replace it. That is the most important part of the commitment. There is the commitment to replace it with some form of freedom of information legislation. As my hon. Friend said, the burden will be put on public authorities to justify withholding information.
There is a firm commitment in the manifesto. There is no firmer commitment to be found in it. However, we have had nothing so far. Give or take an autumn or a spring, we are within sight of a General Election. We are now promised—we have been promised for some time—that we are in sight of a White Paper.
What has been happening all this time? We have heard from the Minister of State—we are grateful for his explanation—that there have been difficulties. We have been told that much information has to be gathered together and that it has not been possible, for that and other reasons, to produce a White Paper earlier. However, we are now in mid-June and we shall go into recess towards the end of July. We may or may not have a General Election in October. We may not have the General Election until next spring. Either way, there is not a hope in hell of getting any legislation on to the statute book between now and a General Election.
What is more, I am worried whether we should have a White Paper at all. If the

White Paper contains only a promise to reform Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act and a reference only to a Freedom of Information Act, the Government can keep it. They should think again and produce something more in line with the Labour Party manifesto commitment.
Several hon. Members have referred to commitments made by the Government about their plans for introducing some kind of reform of the Official Secrets Act. I remind the Minister of State that in November 1976 the Home Secretary, outlining his plans for the reform of Section 2, said that
the mere receipt of official information should no longer be an offence.
My right hon. Friend also said that the Attorney-General should
take into account the Government's intention to introduce legislation on the lines I have indicated in considering whether to bring proceedings under Section 2."—[Official Report, 22nd November 1976; Vol 919, c. 1882–3.]
What has stopped the Government from doing something? That was over 18 months ago. Since then we have had nothing but promises, promises. They go on giving promises, but nothing happens.
We all believe—I am sure the Government will deny this—that the Civil Service is stopping anything from being done. I think that there are forces within the Civil Service, the police and perhaps across the generality of the "establishment" which do not want any change in the law and that those forces are stopping us. I think that a Labour Government, above all, should have the clout to break through and produce something more in line with what the general public need.
We have heard what other countries are doing. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Walton that there is no necessity for us to base our Freedom of Information Act, which I hope we shall eventually get, on anyone else's pattern. But we can learn many lessons from the experience of the United States, Sweden and other Scandinavian countries. They are to be admired for having pioneered a better form of open government than other countries have experienced.
For example, the United States—I believe that this is also true of Sweden—has shown what the law has cost because some people have made use of it for their own ends. It has changed the


relationship between the Government and the community That is why we are having this debate. We want a changing and closer relationship between the Government and the community.
We do not have any right of access to information in this Parliament. I was interested to read the long and valuable list of Questions tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and the even more valuable list of answers which appeared in Hansard. My hon. Friend asked each Government Department in turn what Questions could be asked and what Questions would be answered, and he got some dusty replies. I think that the list should be pinned up in the Table Office so that we know exactly where we stand whenever we try to get information on behalf of our constituents.
The other side of the freedom of information coin is privacy. I am not certain that we can deal with freedom of information and privacy in one Bill, but the two must be taken concurrently. It is crucial that we should have a law to control personal records. Individuals must have the right to see, check and challenge their own files.

Mr. John Lee: And those of their children.

Miss Richardson: I shall come to that in a moment. More and more individuals are becoming worried about this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) made a telling reference to it. Much research has been done. Until recently, I did not realise that the files which begin with our school records can follow us for a considerable period of time after we leave school. I was horrified to find that that is so.
Unsigned comments of teachers can follow pupils beyond school and through university to their subsequent jobs. Comments such as "This lad is aggressive" can follow a boy after he leaves school. There is no signature—just that phrase. When that boy becomes of employment age, his employer can see that comment and say "I do not want this boy because he is aggressive". All sorts of off-the-top-of-the-head comments are made and it can be dangerous.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is often pressure on teachers to put some entry on to the record card? There is much pressure on the teacher who is filling in the form to look round for something to say about a child, because there is disapproval if the form is left blank. Exaggerations can be forced on the teacher who feels that he must say something.

Miss Richardson: I agree. That is a valuable point which I had not thought about. I can see that a headmistress or headmaster might take a teacher to task for returning a blank report on a child simply because he or she had no particular comment to make. Parents should be able to go to the school, demand the right to see their child's file and challenge what has been said.
There are also medical records and Department of Health and Social Security records which have been shown to contain detrimental comments. I read of a case where a single mother on social security happened to see her DHSS file. I do not know how she managed that, but I bet she is glad that she did. It said that she was neurotic and that she needed father figures. It also criticised her political views. I dispute the right of a DHSS official to make such comments on the record. But at least such a woman should have the opportunity to see her file, to challenge it and to have anything which is incorrect put right.
There has been discussion about a data protection authority. We are eventually to have an authority to supervise computerised information, from wherever it comes. When will this authority be introduced? At the same time as responding to this debate in its demand for a revision of the Official Secrets Act, the Government should make an urgent move forward so that people are protected by a data protection authority.
These are all matters that the Government ought to have brought forward a couple of years ago. We ought now to have been able to debate the results of a Freedom of Information Act and decide whether it had been working successfully. I am sorry that it is a Labour Government who have delayed and dragged their feet on this issue for so long.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: The hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) spent much of her speech criticising the Government for their delay in implementing any meaningful reform of the Official Secrets Act, and I share her impatience. The Government's attitude towards implementing such a reform reminds me of the old Punch cartoon which depicted an elderly gentleman sitting in a rocking chair being asked by a social worker what he did all day. The old gentleman's reply was "Sometimes I sits and thinks, and at other times I just sits." The fact is that the Government have been sitting on reform of the Official Secrets Act in spite of the mass of pledges for urgent action. They have been sitting on the Franks Report for almost five years. Also gathering dust in the Lord Chancellor's office is the Franks Report on defamation, the Younger Report on privacy and the Phillimore Report on contempt.
All these important law reforms, impinging as they do on the freedom of the Press, need implementing in order to clarify the very real difficulties under which Press and television work today. I agree with the much-quoted comment by the distinguished editor of The Sunday Times, Mr. Harold Evans, that in Britain today we have a half-free Press and that it will remain half-free until the Government do something to speed up these various reforms, and the one it could best start with is the one that we are discussing tonight.
It is salutary to recall—it is a matter of shame to several generations of parliamentarians—that in this brief half-day debate we are spending five times as long as the 36 minutes that was devoted to the debate which the House of Commons conducted in passing all stages of the Official Secrets Act 1911, which is still the basic legislation governing this matter today. As a result of that unseemly and unnecessary haste it is small wonder that we still have a badly drafted and unsatisfactory piece of legislation.
The defects of that Act are far too well known to need lengthy exposition. Suffice it to say that the catch-all nature of Section 2 is so vague and broad that it fails to draw a clear distinction between espionage and leakage and between those disclosures which compromise national

security and those which merely embarrass the Government of the day. The Act has been made obsolete by a change in national status and, above all, by the enlargement of the activities of government.
So we face a situation in which the same legal teeth that in 1911 were sharpened to prevent information on the movements of the Royal Navy's battleships from falling into the hands of enemy agents are today being used merely to prevent embarrassing gossip about maladministration of the welfare services from falling into the hands of national newspapers. This trend has brought about a situation worthy of Parkinson's Law, whereby the pressures towards tighter official secrecy seem to be growing in inverse proportion to the diminishing number of secrets worth guarding.
An example of this that might amuse the House occurred when the student daughter of the well known television interviewer Ludovic Kennedy recently sought a vacation job as a temporary gardener at Hampton Court Palace. Before she was allowed to embark upon the momentously secret task of planting crocuses the Department of the Environment solemnly required her to sign a form reminding her of her obligations under the Official Secrets Act.
But that example is perhaps not quite so absurd and isolated as one might think Here I take up a point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan), who stressed the fact that the lack of prosecutions was no guide to the effect of the Official Secrets Act still being on the statute book. The form that Miss Kennedy signed is Form E74, which has printed on it the whole of Section 2 and a reminder of the obligation to obey it. That is the form that every new recruit to the Civil Service is still made to sign. It is the form which only last year even the elected members of the Housing Executive in Northern Ireland were made to sign, before they could begin their top secret duties of allocating council houses.
It is this form which, even though criticised by the Franks Committee for its erroneous and misleading wording, still hangs like the sword of Damocles over the head of every minor bureaucrat in Britain and which, by an implied


threat of prosecution—which, incidentally, is no longer valid, given the disuse of Section 2—nevertheless has the significant effect of blocking the free flow of information.
If the Government want to display their good faith in reducing the pressures of official secrecy and moving towards more open government, I suggest that they look at paragraphs 26 and 27 of volume 1 of the Franks Report and immediately discontinue issuing Form E74. It is a simple administrative change. It could be implemented long before any legislation is brought in. I suggest that the Minister should do this forthwith.
In what other directions should we reform the Act? On this subject, everyone is an instant expert. There are many siren voices making suggestions, sometimes very radical suggestions. I agree entirely with the distinguished speech made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) in opening the debate. The real problem is to strike a balance between the Government's right to preserve confidentiality and, sometimes, absolute secrecy, on the one hand, and the public's right to know, on the other hand.
How do we do this? Again, I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. There can be no real argument about national security secrets. Espionage, anything that jeopardises the defence of the realm, or the security of the State, is in this category and is probably covered already by Section 1 of the Act—and, incidentally, by the D notice voluntary system, which, on the whole, works very well because media editors, who are sensible and patriotic men, realise that foolish risks need not be taken by disclosures in these areas.
But do we need anything in place of Section 2? If one simply had a one-clause Bill abolishing Section 2 and putting nothing whatever in its place, what would happen? Would Government secrets pour into the columns of the Press like the waters of Niagara? I doubt it. Internal disciplinary codes are already very strong and the Government already know well how to maintain their own confidentiality.

Miss Richardson: Does the hon. Member agree that Section 1 overlaps

Section 2, and that simply to take out Section 2 might not do the job?

Mr. Aitken: As the New Law Journal said in a different context, the Official Secrets Act is as long as the Attorney-General's foot. The discretion to prosecute is so large that of course there is an overlapping area. But I believe that in the past, on the whole—I do not wish to comment on any current cases—the discretion to prosecute has always been well exercised, and only national security and espionage matters have been—previously, at least—covered by Section 1.

Miss Richardson: Previously.

Mr. Aitken: But if real fears exist—and they may exist in the areas of budgetary secrecy or exchange rate matters, from which individual civil servants could make commercial gains by disclosures—an Official Information Act of the kind that has been suggested, or a Civil Service Information Act, could lay down certain penalties for Government servants who break the confidentiality rules.
Any such Act should have a positive declaratory section reminding civil servants that it is their duty to communicate as much information as possible to the public, as wel las imposing certain negative penalties in respect of breaches to which I have referred.
I do not in any way go along with the Scientologists, the national executive committee of the Labour Party, the public secrets group of the Outer Circle Policy Unit, and other assorted cranks and crackpots who appear to want total disclosure and an automatic right of access to all Government information. I support wholeheartedly the criticisms of the Freedom of Information Act as it is working in America, made so eloquently by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby. Such an Act would tilt the balance too far. The authority of government cannot be maintained in a goldfish bowl, where everything is on display or about to be displayed. A balance must be struck, and I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend got it right in his excellent speech today.

9.14 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Price: I shall try to heed your warning,


Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of Mr. Speaker at the beginning of the debate.
I am very glad that the Hansard of 1911 for the day when the Official Secrets Bill went through the House has at last achieved some notoriety. I put in a submission to the Committee of Privileges, and having Xeroxed the relevant copy I sent it in. I am sure that the fact that it has been widely quoted today has nothing to do with that and that all hon. Members have done their individual research.
For those who assume that our laws have been fully considered by Parliament before being put on to the statute book, I think that the Official Report of that debate is an object lesson of how not to put through legislation. When the 1911 Bill went through Parliament, assurances were given by the Attorney-General and the Secretary of State for War that it would be used only against what I would call bona fide spies. It is now being used against a much wider range of people.
I think that Parliament's intentions are in danger of being frustrated. That is why I am glad that there is such a wide discussion on the whole issue. We cannot discuss the two sub judice cases, but I can mention the Hosenball deportation because that is over. It is instructive to remember that Mark Hosenball, who was expelled from this country as being a danger to the State, is now an accredited White House journalist and was attending our Prime Minister's Press conference in Washington a week or so ago.
The standards that the United States takes for granted as a result of the Freedom of Information Act are not yet accepted in this country, because we have a tradition of secrecy that runs far deeper than in any other country among the EEC Nine that I have come across and far deeper than in the United States, particularly since Watergate.
I suspect that the problem with the Official Secrets Act is that when the Bill went through Parliament in 1911 it was absolutely accepted who was a spy and who was not. A spy was a man with a sketch pad sitting in Portsmouth, sketching the batteries facing out to sea. If one saw someone doing that, even though he said he was there to listen to

the birds—as Viscount Haldane mentioned in one case—he was a spy.
In the past 10 years there has been a persistent campaign by certain senior Ministry of Defence people, by certain generals, saying that the enemy is not without but is within, and that the security we need is not so much against Russian or Chinese spies as against people whose loyalty to this country is in question for political reasons. The moment that argument is accepted—that ordinary British citizens might be proceeded against for their political opinions under the Official Secrets Act, because they are somehow analogous to German spies in 1911—we are in extreme danger.
That is why I very much hope that when we get down to reform we shall not only reform Section 2 on the lines Lord Franks recommended but go much further. We are in a new situation. If any Government, whichever party happened to be in power at the time, attempted simply to reform Section 2 and do absolutely nothing about the spill-over of Section 1 and absolutely nothing about moving towards some sort of Freedom of Information Act, some of us might say "We shall block any reform of Section 2 until we get a much wider and much more comprehensive reform."
I was sorry to hear the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan), for whom as a lawyer I have a great regard, lambasting the United States Freedom of Information Act as he did. Any new Act has teething troubles, but anyone from the United States whom I asked says that on balance, although there are teething troubles, its effects—particularly about the information which now never needs to be asked for, and which comes forward automatically—are wholly good. I was sorry to hear the hon. and learned Member, say "Let us reform Section 2 but let us not bother with a Freedom of Information Act." He is probably wanting to appear rather more of a judicial good boy, feeling that a place in the Government may be coming his way one day.
I very much hope that Tory Members who have campaigned in the way that the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby and the hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) have done do


not go all soft and weak at the vague prospect of a little more responsibility in future. This is an all-party matter and it will need a united front to crack the civil servants, who in my view have not given up and will continue to try to prevent any reform in future, even of Section 2 of the Act.
I give notice that there will be many of my hon. Friends, and, I hope, Tory Members, who will not be satisfied with mere Franks Section 2 reform and who, when whatever Government may be in power came to legislate on the matter, will want to go a good deal further.
Because of the plea for brevity, I end with a short moral tale about how matters have not changed. We have heard the story of the crocuses in Hampton Court. Some people may have seen the story in The Guardian diary today about Peter Laurie's book entitled "Beneath the City Streets". Mr. Laurie is a distinguished Sunday Times journalist who wrote this book in 1968. He submitted it to the then Home Secretary, the present Prime Minister. The then Home Secretary gave it the OK. It went through and was published.
Mr. Laurie now wants to republish the book, with a little extra information in it. He is a law-abiding citizen, and so he resubmitted his book to the Home Secretary, the Attorney-General and the Minister of Defence saying "Would you like to comment on this before it is published?" He finds that the Attorney-General, the Ministry of Defence and the security authorities have objections. Being an excellent, law-abiding citizen, he asked "What are these objections, because I am happy to cut out anything to which you object?" They have written back saying "That is something we cannot possibly tell you. To tell you what we object to would be revealing an official secret."

Mr. John: I hope that that part of the diary item is more accurate than the first paragraph, where it is said that Members of Parliament
debated the Official Secrets Act yesterday.

Mr. Price: I have done a little work to check this story and I can assure my hon. Friend that to the best of my belief it is absolutely accurate in the particulars I have mentioned. If the Government

behave in that way, they cannot object if an author who wants to write a book about things which may be on the borderline does as most American authors do—namely, take the book to a publisher without asking any questions and allow publication to go ahead, so that it is too late for the Government to do anything about it.
I do not make a great point about this. It is a moral tale, like the Hampton Court tale. People do not change, and there are those in the government—I do not blame Ministers, because some are anxious for reform, but there are civil servants—who have not realised that we are post-Watergate. We are in a quite different situation regarding freedom of information as compared with 10 years ago. Something has to happen now. I have been encouraged by the speeches from both sides of the House to feel that, whatever happens at the General Election, there is a three-party consensus which will ensure that we not only reform Section 2 but, I hope, go a good way beyond that.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. Percy Grieve: As the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) said, there has been a remarkable consensus, although perhaps not remarkable in the sense that one says "remarkable" when something is extraordinary. It is, I venture to suggest, right and proper that there should be such a consensus, and there has been a remarkable consensus across both sides of the House and across all the parties that have participated in the debate tonight, with regard to Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act.
It has been universally agreed in parliamentary circles for a long time now, for far too long, that Section 2 has served its purpose and ought to be repealed—if it ever had a purpose which justified the extreme terms in which it is couched.
It is seven years since, in the case in which my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) was concerned, Mr. Justice Caulfield said of that section that it had reached retirement age and ought to be pensioned off. It is six years since the Franks Report was published. It is five years since the then Home Secretary—now Lord Carr—when the Conservative Party was last in power, pledged the Conservative Party to implement the main considerations of the Franks Report.


Within a few months the Conservative Party had gone out of power and we had a Labour Government, at the beginning of 1974. In 1975, the Home Secretary promised that the Franks Report, or something along its lines, would be implemented. The Prime Minister, in interventions in the House of Commons, expressed similar views. That was three years ago.
Whatever view we take about the Government's ultimate length, they are approaching their end. I can think of no better task for the last days of this moribund Administration than implementing the promise made in 1975 and getting on with the job. We do not need a White Paper to deal with Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. That section could be dealt with quite briefly in legislation which, I believe, would have unanimous approval across the House of Commons.
I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Lewisham, West—I make this point unreservedly and straight away—with regard to other parts of the Official Secrets Act. I regretted hearing him say that somehow support from him, and perhaps some of his hon. Friends, for a repeal of Section 2 would be made dependent upon a recasting of Section 1. I believe that Section 1 is necessary—or something along the lines of Section 1 is necessary—for the essential defence of the realm. Something like Section 1 is essential in any society to safeguard itself. Section 2 is altogether different. Section 1 protects the safety of the realm. Section 2, as I see it, protects the convenience of the Government.

Mr. Christopher Price: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that Section 1 and something like Section 1 are not the same thing, and that there are certain defects in Section 1 which could well be cleared up at the same time as Section 2, particularly the duty on the defendant, in certain circumstances, to prove his innocence, rather than vice versa.

Mr. Grieve: No legislation is perfect and I am not here to say that Section 1 is a perfect instrument to do what it does. But I am bound to say that on matters of espionage, the limited reversal of the burden of proof is something which I believe the State, in self-defence, has

the right to insist upon. Whereas in a consideration of the whole of this legislation it would be right that Section 1 should come under the microscope along with the rest, I repeat that Section I or something like Section 1 is essential to the defence of the realm.
Section 2, however, is a matter of the convenience of the Government. The Franks Report has broken down the matters that might legitimately come within the purview of a new Section 2. In the short time available, I shall not take up time in expressing my support for the analysis of the Franks Committee as it was expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) when he opened the debate this evening, and as it has been expressed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan).
I believe that something along the lines of the Franks Report is right. But Section 2 in fact has been used in terrorem. The reason why a great many bureaucrats want to keep it is not that they necessarily want to see prosecuted in the courts—I take the point made by the Minister—those who may infringe Section 2. Of course, there is the Attorney General's fiat, which is necessary for a prosecution. It is there to deter people from in any way breaching Section 2.
I hope that I am not being too historical in going back to one of the most famous prosecutions under this Act, that of Sir Compton Mackenzie in 1932, when I was a boy of 16. It was, on the face of it, a wanton and foolish prosecution. Compton Mackenzie had written a book of memoirs on his work as an officer in Greece during the First World War, in which he mentioned one or two persons who were concerned in similar activities. One of them had detailed his work in "Who's Who?" Others had been mentioned in a book by Sir Basil Thompson "Allied Secret Service in Greece". Why on earth was he prosecuted? He was obliged to plead guilty. He was so advised by his counsel, and Mr. Justice Hawke, who tried the case, said that he had no option. Indeed, he had not.
But why was that man prosecuted in those circumstances? It was not because


he had done anything wicked, reprehensible or injurious to the realm. It was because the Government of the day thought that this was a very good way of deterring others from writing similar books of memoirs.
That is the way in which Section 2 has been used. That is the function of Section 2 as it is being used at present. As Voltaire said, when Admiral Byng was shot for alleged cowardice and everyone throughout civilised Europe exclaimed in horror at our act:
C'etait pour encourager les attires
This section is so used, and so used it is reprehensible. So used it ought to be repealed. The sooner it is repealed the better.
I come back to where I was a few minutes ago. What better way have the Government of employing their time—and they have plenty of time on their hands, because they have very little else to offer us—in the declining days of their administration than in implementing a promise that was made three years ago. I have very little hope, but hope springs eternal in the human breast. Perhaps the voices which have been raised on both sides of the House in this debate will encourage them to do so. I very much hope that they might bring to an otherwise perhaps not brilliant history, when it comes to be written, at least the virtue of having repealed Section 2 of this Act and put in its place something more consistent with the needs of the modern State and of modern government.

9.34 p.m.

Mr. Edward Gardner: This debate has at least shown that there is no secret, if there ever has been, of the views of the House about the need to replace Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act as soon as possible with sensible law. That notorious section, which was passed swiftly through Parliament on a quiet afternoon in 1911, is still a giant of a legal broom with an absurd propensity, when it is let loose, to sweep everything before it, good or bad. It was and it still is prevented from making a continuous ass of the law only by the wide discretion of Attorneys-General of successive Governments who alone can decide when it has to be brought out of its cupboard.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) said that the section was badly drafted. That is about the most polite comment that can be made about it. It is quite clear from the opinions of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House that, as Franks said, the section is "a mess". It is as repugnant as it is ridiculous. It is bad law, and it is bad sense that, because of this section, any official information or document becomes a State secret to which the section applies whether or not it is classified, secret or confidential or affects the nation's security.
As speaker after speaker has made clear, it is very odd that this major piece of legislative folly is still on our statute book, capable of making a fool of anyone who tries to invoke its powers.
As so many right hon. and hon. Members have pointed out, the worst features of the section are its width, its uncertainty and, above all, its failure to distinguish between the communication of official information which could merely be a political embarrassment to the Government of the day and classified information which would cause serious damage to the nation's security.
As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) all reminded the House, in the Sunday Telegraph case in 1971 Mr. Justice Caulfield described the section in his summing up as one which should be "pensioned off". It was then 60 years old. It is now 67 years old, and it is still poisoning the relationship between the Press and Whitehall and between the Civil Service and the public.
In 1968, Fulton called for greater openness in government, and that is a call which the Opposition support. From what we have heard in this debate, it has the support of both sides of the House. In our view, Franks shows how the first and necessary step towards the reform of the law is the replacement of Section 2 with a sensible and effective new law which will enable the Press, people, politicians and all others who have to tread through this minefield—and again I use the words of Mr. Justice Caulfield—
to determine without great difficulty in what circumstances the communication of official


information would put them in peril of prosecution.
We are strongly opposed to excessive and needless secrecy in administration. We see it as a formidable shield for administrators, the Civil Service and the Government of the day, which makes for bad government and can and does ultimately undermine democracy.
It appears from what the Minister said at the beginning of the debate that the Government now want to go beyond Franks and the mere replacement of Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. We have been hearing from hon. Member after hon. Member tonight advantages and disadvantages of a Freedom of Information Act along the lines of the one now in force in the United States and in the Scandinavian countries.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) has brought before the House a catalogue of disadvantages of such an Act. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery was slightly unfair in suggesting that my hon. and learned Friend has been unduly influenced by speaking to members of the American Civil Service who may not like that kind of legislation. It seems to me much more likely that he has been speaking to Mr. Roy Jenkins, who went to America to see how the amended law was working and came back with the view that it was costly and cumbercome legislation. This seems to bear out other views that the legislation was formidably burdensome.
If the Government are looking at this problem seriously—and I hope they are—they should devote thought to providing some idea of their thoughts. At present neither the country nor the House has any form of guidance. In fact, I think that this is the first time that the House has heard that the Government now want to go beyond the Franks Committee's recommendation.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The hon. and learned Member has just asked the Government whether they will consider this. But they have been considering it for five years and have come up with nothing. Does he really think that the next five years will be any different?

Mr. Gardner: No, I do not, but what I am saying is that tonight we appear to

be hearing for the first time about the Government's ambition to go beyond the recommendation of Franks. I am merely saying that if the Government are going beyond Franks and looking at a Freedom of Information Act it is imperative that they should produce a White Paper on that rather than on Section 2.

Mr. Hooson: But the Home Secretary said in 1976 that he would go beyond Franks. He has two years to go beyond Franks and has not done so.

Mr. Gardner: I agree with that. But what the Home Secretary did not say, and what the Minister has said tonight—I am open to correction if I have understood him wrongly—is that in going beyond Franks the Government are looking at a Freedom of Information Act.
It is all very well to talk about great reforms of the law, but no reform of the law can ever be acceptable or effective unless great thought is given to it. If we knew that the Government had been devoting their contemplative moments to considering whether there was any advantage in one form of law reform or another, we might have been slightly more impressed, but the somnolent posture of the Government towards Section 2 is remarkable.
It seems that for years Ministers have been talking in their sleep and doing nothing about the problem which we have been discussing tonight or about the solutions which have been put forward. They never seemed to wake up—until tonight. Tonight the Minister has promised that we shall have a White Paper before the end of July.

Mr. John: Why did not the Conservative Party deal with the subject in "The Right Approach"?

Mr. Gardner: We are not the Government, but we shall be soon and we shall put this matter right. When we came into Government in 1970, we had a debate within nine months of coming into office and we set up the Franks Committee. We are complaining—I think we are justified to the hilt in doing so—that the Government have done virtually nothing about the matter. Tonight they have promised that we shall have a White Paper by a given time—namely, the end of July. We are pleased to know that whatever other accomplishment may have been achieved


by tonight's debate, which is on the initiative of the Opposition, we have at least apparently awoken the Government to the need for some kind of action towards the urgent reform of Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act.

9.47 p.m.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for allowing me to take a couple of minutes of his time. I shall show my gratitude by posing just one question to him.
Will he think back on the way in which the Government set about preparing their White Paper on the Official Secrets Act and consider whether it would have been a good idea to publish all the drafts and memoranda that went into the preparation of that document? I think that publication would be a good indication of open government, and it would certainly enable hon. Members to see all the arguments that went into the White Paper.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. John: With the leave of the House, I shall seek to answer a number of the points which have been made in this debate.
I wish first to deal with the speech of the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner). He appeared at first to suggest that I had broken fresh territory. I am not usually loth to plead guilty to that, but in fact my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, no doubt in the hon. and learned Gentleman's absence, announced the publication of a White Paper.
The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed curiously obsessed by the fact that I was going beyond Franks in promising a Freedom of Information Bill. I say nothing about that. I was addressing my comments to the counter-argument which has been advanced on many occasions—my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) fell into this error—that if one reforms Section 2 in isolation, that will be a bar to going any further. I was suggesting that the modernisation of Section 2 was an essential prerequisite of that move. I should like nobody to be under any misapprehension as to what I said, but I thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman,

judging by some parts of his remarks, was in another place listening to an entirely different debate.
The right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) and the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) dealt with the important question whether classification was necessary and how it could be proved to the satisfaction of a court. I fully understand the force of the argument that if the Minister is seen to do it on his own initiative, there is a tendency to regard him as judge and jury, but the hon. and learned Members for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) and Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) dissented from the forum into which the right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon decided to place it, and when my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West mentioned the Hosenball case, it reminded me that the reference to the "three wise men" on that occasion did not, to put it neutrally, command universal admiration. I beg the right hon. and learned Gentleman not to imagine that his suggestion would rid the matter of all criticism. It is important to get it right, and we shall study what he said as part of that process, but his proposal may not be the ideal solution, for reasons that he can guess.

Sir M. Havers: It is unlikely that any tribunal or committee of inquiry will achieve universal approbation. We are seeking to put up a committee that will receive the approval of the great majority of people. On the Agee-Hosenball case, few people did not accept the advice that the Home Secretary was given by the "three wise men."

Mr. John: I understand the point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is making. Clearly it is important, but he must not expect universal approbation or immediate acceptance. It is important to get it right so that as wide an approbation as possible can be achieved. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that a wide spectrum of the public accepted the advice given to my right hon. Friend, but a wide spectrum of the public was uninvolved in that case and may be uninvolved in the subject that we are debating. That does not change the rightness of it, but hon. Members should not exaggerate too greatly the public interest in this matter.
My hon. Friends the Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) and Barking (Miss Richardson) referred to computer security and the danger to private individuals of the records stored on computers. This goes beyond the Official Secrets Act, but my hon. Friends will know that we have set up the Lindop Committee to look into this matter. We hope to have in the very near future the report of its deliberations on how individuals and privacy can be safeguarded in an era when mechanical and electronic devices make it all too easy for there to be intrusion into that area.

Miss Richardson: What about files that do not go on to computers? The data protection authority covers computers, but there will still be many files in this country that are not held on computers.

Mr. John: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but she must not make a rejoinder to me on a point that I was not answering as though I had failed to answer her. I was addressing myself specifically to the question of computer privacy, which worries many people in this country. I shall look at what she has said about what may be called old-fashioned files that are compiled by hand, to consider the force of what she is saying.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Should the public not have the right to see those files so that they can correct them when they are wrong? What is the use of having a file when much of the information in it is wrong and an individual does not have a right to see that information and correct it?

Mr. John: I heard my hon. Friend's point the first time that he made it. He did not need to repeat it.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: My hon. Friend did not answer it.

Mr. John: I hardly had time to answer it before my hon. Friend bounced up in his own inimitable fashion and intervened. The point that I am making to my hon. Friend the Member for Barking, as opposed to my putative duettist below the Gangway, is that I shall consider that problem and get in touch with her.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West mentioned going one

step further than Section 2. I repeat that in my view any step beyond Section 2 needs the reformation of Section 2, its modernisation and the narrowing of the offences contained within it before we can have a sensible discussion. That is what we promised to do in the Queen's Speech and that is a promise that we shall honour. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept my assurance.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery was worried about our failure to carry out our manifesto commitment. I thought that it was his party's proud boast that it had prevented the Government from carrying out their manifesto commitments. Obviously that is not always a universal virtue in Liberal eyes.
The hon. and learned Gentleman submitted an interesting document on the Official Secrets Act, especially on Sections 1 and 2. I have considered Section 2 and find that there are still problems, even on his formulation. If he wishes to discuss those matters with me, I shall be happy to do so. There are difficulties where he seems to feel that the simplification of the Franks' denominations and formulae is absolutely simple. From our examination of his paper and of the points involved, we do not believe that that is so.
The hon. and learned Gentleman complains that I am detailing the difficulties of legislating. Of course I detailed the difficulties. On the last occasion that the House enacted an Official Secrets Bill in half an hour, with an assurance that there were no problems, it made a mess of it. After all, we have Section 2. I am detailing the difficulties now because hon. Members will be aware that there are some problems that will need resolution and a White Paper.
The hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) was rather unfair to his Front Bench when he said that we do not want a White Paper. It was the right hon. Member or Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) who asked for one. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department assented to that request. Having done so, I believe that it was a good request. The formula of having a White Paper that sets out legislative proposals before a Bill is introduced is more likely to get the Bill right


than if the Bill comes first, there is discussion on the Bill, the Minister tries to force it through and the Opposition try to amend it, sometimes sensibly and sometimes not.

Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman has taken my observation slightly out of context. I said that if the Government were to fulfil their promise within the short time now available to them, there would be no reason for them not to have a Bill to replace Section 2 and no necessity for a White Paper.

Mr. John: That is the consensus of which the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke. However, even as he spoke his idea of a consensus had evaporated. For good or ill my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West said "If you are only to repeal Section 2, we want nothing of it".

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) is greedy.

Mr. John: It may be that my hon. Friend is greedy, but there cannot be a consensus when a preceding speaker had denied the central premise of the thesis of a consensus. We are saying that the White Paper will enable these matters to be debated so that by the time the Bill is introduced it will be a measure that will command the maximum support possible from the House.
Hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West, have been rather dismissive of all the information that is being circulated by the Government. A tremendous amount of extra information is now being submitted by Government Departments. Much more information is being given to ordinary members of the public than ever before.
Let us not kid ourselves. Some of the more esoteric concepts that we have been debating tonight leave the public indifferent. The public have had difficulty in the past in getting information upon which to found their objections when a road inquiry has taken place. That has to be contrasted with the Ministry of Transport's present procedure of producing information well in advance and having a procedure where the issues are simplified and narrowed. The public are grateful for that new approach. That

information is a source of great benefit to the public.
I believe that the Government have a good record on the circulation of additional information—

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Orders of the Day — TIMOTHY McALEAVEY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coleman.]

10.0 p.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I am grateful for the opportunity of bringing the case of Timothy McAleavey to the attention of the House. His mother had the application for a mobility allowance refused by the Department of Health and Social Security. Three times it was made, and on each occasion it was flatly rejected. An appeal was made to the medical appeal tribunal and it was dismissed.
Here, in my opinion, is an injustice to a relatively helpless, totally speechless, mentally retarded boy, who is now 12 years of age. He has been subject to epilepsy since birth, and from time to time he takes weak turns during which he may fall to the ground. Whenever he travels in a vehicle, he has to be strapped into a seat and supervised throughout the journey. The doctor in the clinical findings during his examination, stated that Timothy kept up a constant whimpering and groaning with occasional shouts. That is all this boy can do. He cannot speak.
This unfortunate boy's case cries out for compassionate treatment. I trust that my appeal on his behalf will arouse more than words of sympathy from the Government. That I can bring Timothy's case before the High Court of Parliament should provide some comfort to those people who, like myself, feel frustrated by the restrictions of this House and angered by the heavy hand of bureaucracy which has fallen on Northern Ireland with direct rule.
However, the effect of being able to argue Timothy's case in this Chamber is ruined by the fact that the Minister responsible for the Department of Health


and Social Security is not present, and, indeed, cannot be present, because he is a peer and, therefore, a Member of another place. If ever I want a fresh reason for a major reform of the House of Lords—and who needs further argument for that proposition?—I shall be able to quote this instance. The Minister is not here. We have the Under-Secretary of State who is responsible for the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland, but we do not have the Minister himself.
The Minister, in the penultimate paragraph of a letter of 28th February dealing with and dismissing an appeal that I made to him on Timothy's behalf, said:
The decision of the Medical Appeal Tribunal is final. There is no provision in the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Act 1975 for a further appeal.
The Minister is, of course, wrong, because there is the right of appeal to the High Court on a point of law by way of certiorari. But the Minister was recognising the reality of the situation that Mrs. McAleavey would not be able to pursue her appeal there, because no full legal aid would be forthcoming. Indeed, one of the sad facts of life is that many disabled people, like Timothy, are unable to receive legal aid to pursue their cases with qualified solicitors before medical appeal tribunals. I hope that one day that state of affairs will be remedied, and the sooner the better.
This situation places Timothy and others in Northern Ireland whose appeals have been or will be dismissed by the medical appeal tribunal in a worse position than their counterparts in the rest of the United Kingdom, where there is an appeal from the medical appeal tribunal to the national insurance commissioner from whose decision appeal may then lie to the High Court, also on a point of law.
This anomaly and injustice is seemingly because in Ulster the commissioner acts as chairman of the medical appeal tribunals. I call on the Government, for the sake of fair play, to change the law and to give Northern Ireland the same rights of appeal as exist in Great Britain. Since the Minister argues on the question of seat belts that the law should be the same throughout the United Kingdom, we should have his support in this matter.
In the letter of 28th February to which I referred, the Minister stated the obvious. He said that Mrs. McAleavey could reapply for a mobility allowance on Timothy's behalf at any time. But, instead of Mrs. McAleavey reapplying, the Minister or the Department should consult with the national insurance commissioner, with the object of the Department bringing an appeal. That appears to be a reasonable course of action to anyone who has scrutinised the findings of the last medical appeal tribunal and who is concerned about the disparity in the rights of appeal between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
There have been Press reports about a case in which the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) was interested concerning a 12-year-old mongol boy, Robert Edmunds. There the equivalent Department in London, the Department of Health and Social Security, brought an appeal to the national insurance commissioner in that case. A Press report of that case was sent to the Minister to assist him and his Department. In that case the medical appeal tribunal had allowed the appeal. The Department appealed against that decision in order to have the law clarified.
I hope to show why the law should be clarified in Timothy's case. But perhaps the law, or its interpretation, is different in Northern Ireland. Even it it is, on grounds of parity of treatment there should be a change. Clearly, the two systems of social security benefit should operate as a single system throughout the United Kingdom with no differences between them.
The Press report showed what happened in the Robert Edmunds case. The medical appeal tribunal ruled that Robert Edmunds should get a mobility allowance because he suffered from mongolism and because that caused his physical handicap. The Department of Health and Social Security appealed against the decision to the national insurance commissioner—that is the appeal which is denied to people in Northern Ireland—on the ground that people who could walk but were prevented by mental infirmity from doing so should not get the allowance. The report stated:
Earlier this month Mr. Alf Morris, the Minister for the Disabled, said he hoped that the boy would win the case. And if Robert


lost his appeal the Government would consider changing the law.
He was talking about a boy who suffers from mongolism and can walk only a few yards.
The medical appeal tribunal in Timothy McAleavey's case found as a fact that it is by reason only of his mental condition that he cannot be permitted to walk unaccompanied. It is true that the main condition giving rise to the lack of walking ability is due to gross mental retardation, as in the case of Robert Edmunds.
But the other medical conditions or consequential conditions cannot be ignored. The boy Timothy is doubly incontinent. At 12 years of age he wears a nappy, and it is not difficult to imagine the situation. How is it possible for such a youngster to walk as other fit children are able to walk? The whole concept of walking or being able to walk in his case is desperately and pathetically different from our concept of being able to walk. There is no comparison, no common ground, no meeting-place between the two concepts, and I am surprised that his appeal fell on the deaf ears of the Minister and the Department.
The evidence before the medical appeal tribunal states that Timothy
likes to have his hand held when he is outside; he is never allowed out alone.
That was what his mother told the tribunal. No one has denied it or shown it to be untrue. It is a simple fact of Timothy's existence. He has known no other since birth. Timothy cannot be allowed out on the road on his own. He has no road sense whatever. The House should remember that the boy is unable to speak and is able to understand only simple sentences.
The regulations clearly provide that if a person is able to walk with the aid of an artificial limb be can walk. He would thus not be entitled to a mobility allowance. The regulations are equally clear that where the exertion required to walk would constitute a danger to his life or would be likely to lead to a serious deterioration of his health, he is treated as a person who is unable to walk.
In Timothy's case his physical disablement is not related to his ability to walk. His physical disability is a consequence

of a mental disorder, and it is a mental disorder which restricts his physical ability to walk. It is a restraint to such a degree that Timothy is virtually unable to walk.
If another person who is now physically and mentally fit became subject to the infirmities, mental and otherwise, from which Timothy suffers, that person would clearly say, being able to speak, that he was not to be regarded as a person able to walk. We have to see the act or the action of walking as something that a person is able to do on his own with his own physical resources, assisted, if need be, by artificial aids but without the assistance of others.
In my view, the tribunal did not look sufficiently closely into the question of whether the exertion required of Timothy to undertake ordinary walking would constitute a danger to his life or cause a serious deterioration in his health. His mother claims that Timothy has a walking distance of only 15 yards. There is much comment in medical evidence—I shall not trouble the House by reading it out, but the Minister will have it all carefully stored away in his Civil Service brief—to substantiate her statement. The House, and in particular the Minister responsible for the Department of Health and Social Services, should accept it as being substantially true.
What does the insurance officer have to say about this? He says that the distance that a person may be able to progress on foot is not in itself conclusive to a claim for mobility allowance. That may well be so, but an undisputed statement that 15 yards is all the distance that a boy can walk must surely lead to the conclusion that the person is virtually unable to walk and, therefore, qualifies for the mobility allowance.
The regulations refer to
the physical condition as a whole".
This is where the medical appeal tribunal has, in my judgment, misdirected itself. It does not seem to have looked at Timothy's physical condition as a whole but has looked largely at circumstantial and subjective evidence about his walking ability in an unusual and exceptional setting—namely, in the corridor and examination room of the appeals board.
I do not believe that Parliament ever meant to exclude a person such as Timothy from mobility allowance. The


boy is obviously virtually unable to walk in any meaningful sense. It is stretching the imagination and the meaning of language to find otherwise.
Therefore, I sincerely hope that, as a result of the arguments that I have put forward this evening, the Government will change their mind in this case and award the mobility allowance to this unfortunate young lad who suffers such tragic infirmities.

10.16 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ray Carter): The case of Timothy McAleavey has been the subject of correspondence with my noble Friend Lord Melchett and, at the outset, I must make the point that it is not correct to say that the Department of Health and Social Services has refused a grant in this case. All decisions on mobility allowance are made by the independent statutory authorities.
The medical requirements for mobility allowance are that a person is unable or virtually unable to walk because of severe physical disablement and likely to remain so for at least a year and able to make use of the allowance. There are also requirements as to residence and presence in Northern Ireland.
Claims are decided in the first instance by an insurance officer, with a right of appeal on non-medical questions first to a local appeal tribunal and ultimately to the national insurance commissioner. These three adjudicating bodies are all independent statutory authorities, set up under the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Act 1975 and are in no way subject to control or direction by the Department of Health and Social Services or influenced by it.
However, where a claim has been disallowed on medical grounds—that is to say, the claimant is not held to be suffering from such disability that the person is unable to walk or is virtually unable to do so, or the disability is unlikely to persist for 12 months—an appeal may be made in the first instance to a medical board. This consists of two or more medical practitioners who are normally specialists, one of whom is appointed chairman If the claimant is not in agreement with the decision of the medical board, the claimant may appeal to a medical appeal tribunal. The medical

appeal tribunal in Northern Ireland consists of one of the national insurance commissioners as chairman and two medical practitioners. The sole purpose of proceedings before the tribunal is to establish whether the claimant has a right to a benefit which is prescribed by law and which Parliament considers should be paid if the relevant conditions are satisfied. The decisions of the tribunal are final.
If a claim is disallowed on non-medical grounds—for example, it is late, or the claimant is of an age group not eligible to receive mobility allowance—the normal adjudicating procedures apply.
I turn to the specific case, Timothy McAleavey, which the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) has raised. Timothy is a 12-year-old boy who has been mentally retarded since birth. The initial claim to mobility allowance was made by his mother, Mrs. Sarah McAleavey, on 16th January 1977.
As a first step in processing the claim, Timothy was examined by a doctor on 23rd February 1977. The doctor's report included the comment that Timothy's balance was good and that he could walk normally, but that the main difficulty was that he was very nervous and restless and required constant supervision.
On receipt of the medical report the insurance officer on 3rd March 1977 formally disallowed the claim on the ground that Timothy
is not suffering from physical disablement such that he is either unable to walk or virtually to do so. This decision is made having regard to a report from the medical practitioner to whom the question was referred".
Mrs. McAleavey was not satisfied with the decision and she appealed to a medical board, which examined Timothy on 1st June 1977. The two doctors on the board reported their findings as:
This boy can walk unsupported and in a virtually normal manner along the corridor and into rooms. There was no obvious disturbance of balance. He can go outside and when accompanied can walk a reasonable distance.
The next step open to Mrs. McAleavey was to appeal to the medical appeal tribunal, which she did on 7th September 1977, on the grounds that Timothy was suffering from mental retardation and epilepsy since birth, that his walking distance was around 15 yards and that he


required supervision all the time as he suffers from loss of balance. The appeal was heard on 7th December 1977, and Timothy was examined yet again, this time by the medical members of the tribunal, who are of consultant status. The chairman of the tribunal noted in its decision that
the members of the Tribunal watched Timothy walking by himself about the room in which the hearing of this appeal took place and they noted his demeanour during the hearing".
The tribunal recorded the following findings:
We find that Timothy's physical condition is such that he is able to walk quite well notwithstanding his tendency to fits. It is by reason only of his mental condition that he cannot be permitted to walk unaccomanied.
Under regulation 3 of the Social Security (Mobility Allowance) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1975 entitlement to mobility allowance arises only if inability to walk results from physical incapacity. Inability to walk unaccompanied because of a mental condition does not qualify. Where, as here, the person concerned is a child the social or financial needs of the parents are not treated by the Regulations as giving a right to the allowance.
This decision was final, as in Northern Ireland there is no right of appeal to a national insurance commissioner on a point of law from the decision of the medical appeal tribunal. This is because the chairmen of the medical appeal tribunal in Northern Ireland are also national insurance commissioners.
I know that it has previously been suggested in the House that standards applied in Northern Ireland are more strict and consequently less favourable to claimants than those applied in Great Britain. However, neither I nor the chairmen of the medical appeal tribunal believe that this is so.
This brings me to the conditions for entitlement to the allowance. There are many groups campaigning for an extension of the allowance to those who can walk but who have problems in getting about. There are the blind, the deaf, agoraphobics and epileptics. The Government have a great deal of sympathy for all of these groups, but at present resources are just not available to do all that we should like to do.
Finally, I should like to refer to the Robert Edmunds case. Robert is a 12 year-old boy suffering from Down's Syn-

drome, and because of doubt as to his entitlement to mobility allowance his case was referred to the national insurance commissioner last December. The commissioner ruled that Robert was entitled to the payment but that similar doubtful cases would have to be dealt with individually.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, in reply to a Question on 2nd February 1978, said that he had carefully studied the legal and medical implications of the commissioner's decision in this case and proposed to place draft regulations before the National Insurance Advisory Committee and then to lay the regulations before the House as soon as possible.
The aim of the regulations will be to deal with the difficulties caused by the Robert Edmunds case and similar cases of persons who are unable, or virtually unable, to walk. Comparable regulations will be made for Northern Ireland by the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland and, as is intended in the rest of the United Kingdom, when these are made the Department will do all that it can to bring them to the attention of those in Northern Ireland who may be eligible and scrutinise those cases which have been disallowed since mobility allowance was introduced.
I should make it clear that this extension of mobility allowance will not cover Timothy McAleavey's case. What the new regulations will not do is to extend the scope of mobility allowance to people who can walk but who have outdoor mobility problems.

Mr. Kilfedder: The hon. Gentleman will agree that the case of Robert Edmunds was argued by legal representatives on behalf of the Department and Robert Edmunds. Will the Minister not further agree that the Department should lodge an appeal and thereby save some of the expenses which would accrue to Mrs. McAleavey, so that this case can be carefully argued and Timothy and others like him will have justice done or at least the satisfaction of knowing that their case has been fully argued by competent people before a judge?

Mr. Carter: As I have said, the Department is not the adjudicator. The appeal machinery that is well established, and is now well understood in Northern Ireland


and the rest of the United Kingdom, is the area within which judgments are made as to the suitability or otherwise of applicants for the mobility allowance.
There are inevitably, as with all new benefits, some points of criticism, but I believe that the House as a whole will accept that this benefit is an important step forward in helping severely disabled people. New benefits bring new problems, and some people are disappointed

because they are excluded. I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful to the hon. Member for Down, North since I know that he feels strongly about this case, as is evidenced by his taking the matter up personally with my noble Friend Lord Melchett and by raising the matter on the Adjournment to-night

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Ten o'clock.